Skip to main content

Full text of "A history of the Christian church"

See other formats 


;LO 


—  o 
o 


•CJD 


A   HISTORY   OF   THE 
CHRISTIAN   CHURCH 


Ill 


A  HISTORY  OF  THE 
CHRISTIAN  CHURCH 


BY 
WILLISTON    WALKER 

TITUS    STREET    PROFESSOR    OF    ECCLEHIASTICAL    HISTORY 
IN    TALE    UNIVERSITY 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 
1918 


BR 

i^fe 

Ws 


COPYRIGHT,  1918,  BY 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


Published  March,  1918 


To  MY  WIFE 


(        PREFATORY   NOTE 

!N:  this  history  the  writer  has  endeavored  to  treat  the  vast 
field  of  the  story  of  the  church  so  as  to  make  evident,  as  far 
as  he  is  able,  the  circumstances  of  its  origin,  its  early  develop 
ment,  the  changes  which  led  to  the  Reformation,  as  well  as 
the  course  of  that  tremendous  upheaval,  and  those  influences 
which  have  resulted  in  the  present  situation  and  tendencies  of 
the  life  of  the  church.  As  far  as  space  would  permit  he  has 
directed  attention  to  the  growth  of  doctrine  and  the  modifica 
tion  of  Christian  thought. 

He  is  under  obligation  to  many  who  have  labored  in  this 
field  before  him,  but  he  would  express  special  indebtedness  to 
Professor  Friedrich  Loofs,  of  Halle,  whose  Leitfaden  zum 
Studium  der  Dogmengeschichte  has  been  specially  helpful  in 
the  treatment  of  Christian  thought ;  and  to  Professor  Gustav 
Kriiger,  of  Giessen,  and  his  associates,  whose  Handbuch  der 
Kirchengeschichte  is  a  mine  of  recent  bibliographical  informa 
tion. 

WILLISTON  WALKER. 
NEW  HAVEN,  March,  1918. 


CONTENTS 

PERIOD  I.    FROM  THE  BEGINNINGS  TO  THE  GNOSTIC  CRISIS 

PAGE 

I.    THE  GENERAL  SITUATION 1 

II.    THE  JEWISH  BACKGROUND 11 

III.      JESUS  AND   THE   DlSCIPLES 18 

IV.    THE  PALESTINIAN  CHRISTIAN  COMMUNITIES 22 

V.    PAUL  AND  GENTILE  CHRISTIANITY 25 

VI.    THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 33 

VII.    THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  JESUS 35 

VIII.    GENTILE  CHRISTIANITY  OF  THE  SECOND  CENTURY    ...  41 

IX.    CHRISTIAN  ORGANIZATION 44 

X.    RELATIONS  OF  CHRISTIANITY  TO  THE  ROMAN  GOVERNMENT  48 

XL    THE  APOLOGISTS 50 

PERIOD  II.    FROM  THE  GNOSTIC  CRISIS  TO  CONSTANTINE 

I.    GNOSTICISM 53 

II.    MARCION 56 

III.  MONTANISM 57 

* 

IV.  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH 59 

V.    THE  GROWING  IMPORTANCE  OF  ROME 63 

VI.    IREN^US 65 

VII.    TERTULLIAN  AND  CYPRIAN 67 

VIII.    THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  LOGOS  CHRISTOLOGY  IN  THE  WEST  71 

IX.    THE  ALEXANDRIAN  SCHOOL 76 

X.    CHURCH  AND  STATE  FROM  180  TO  260 83 

ix 


x  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

XL    THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CHURCH     .  87 

XII.    PUBLIC  WORSHIP  AND  SACRED  SEASONS 92 

XIII.  BAPTISM 93 

XIV.  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER 97 

XV.    FORGIVENESS  OF  SINS 100 

XVI.    THE  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  HIGHER  AND 

LOWER  MORALITY 102 

XVII.    REST  AND  GROWTH,  260-303 104 

XVIII.    RIVAL  RELIGIOUS  FORCES 106 

XIX.    THE  FINAL  STRUGGLE  .  108 


PERIOD  III.    THE  IMPERIAL  STATE  CHURCH 

I.    THE  CHANGED  SITUATION 112 

II.    THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY  TO  THE  DEATH  OF  CONSTANTINE  114 

III.  CONTROVERSY  UNDER  CONSTANTINE'S  SONS       ....  119 

IV.  THE  LATER  NICENE  STRUGGLE 123 

V.    ARIAN  MISSIONS  AND  THE  GERMANIC  INVASIONS  .     .     .  129 

THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  PAPACY     .     .  134 

""TIL    MONASTICISM 136 

'VIII.    AMBROSE  AND  CHRYSOSTOM 140 

IX.    THE  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 143^ 

X.     THE  EAST  DIVIDED 153 

XL     CATASTROPHES    AND    FURTHER    CONTROVERSIES   IN   THE 

EAST 159 

XII.    THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CHURCH     .  164  ~>a**a 

XIII.  PUBLIC  WORSHIP  AND  SACRED  SEASONS 167 

XIV.  LOWER  CHRISTIANITY 170 

XV.    SOME  WESTERN  CHARACTERISTICS 172 

XVI.    JEROME 173 

XVII.    AUGUSTINE  175 


CONTENTS 


XI 


PAGE 

XVIII.    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY .   .     185 

XIX.    SEMI-PELAGIANISM 188 

"^XX.    GREGORY  THE  GREAT   ...  190 


PERIOD  iv.  'THE  MIDDLE  AGES  TO  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE 

INVESTITURE  CONTROVERSY 

Vs-I.    MISSIONS  IN  THE  BRITISH  ISLANDS 195 

II.    CONTINENTAL  MISSIONS  AND  PAPAL  GROWTH     ....  200 

III.    THE  FRANKS  AND  THE  PAPACY 202 

liV.    CHARLEMAGNE 205 

V.    ECCLESIASTICAL  INSTITUTIONS 208 

VI.     COLLAPSING  EMPIRE  AND  RISING  PAPACY 209 

VII.     PAPAL  DECLINE  AND  RENEWAL  BY  THE  REVIVED  EMPIRE  .  214 

VIII.     REFORM  MOVEMENTS 218 

IX.    THE  REFORM  PARTY  SECURES  THE  PAPACY 222 

X.    THE  PAPACY  BREAKS  WITH  THE  EMPIRE 225 

XI.      HlLDEBRAND   AND   HENRY   IV 228 

XII.    THE  STRUGGLE  ENDS  IN  COMPROMISE 232 

XIII.  THE  GREEK  CHURCH  AFTER  THE  PICTURE  CONTROVERSY  .  234 

XIV.  THE  SPREAD  OF  THE  CHURCH 236 

PERIOD  V.    THE  LATER  MIDDLE  AGES 

'I.    THE  CRUSADES 238 

II.    NEW  RELIGIOUS  MOVEMENTS 245 

III.  ANTICHURCHLY  SECTS.    CATHARI   AND   WALDENSES.    THE 

INQUISITION 249 

IV.  THE  DOMINICANS  AND  FRANCISCANS 254 

V.    EARLY  SCHOLASTICISM 261 

VI.    THE  UNIVERSITIES 267 

VII.    HIGH  SCHOLASTICISM  AND  ITS  THEOLOGY  269 


xii  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

VIII.  THE  MYSTICS 279 

IX.  MISSIONS  AND  DEFEATS 283 

X.  THE  PAPACY  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  AND  ITS  DECLINE       .     .     .  285 

XL  THE  PAPACY  IN  AVIGNON,  CRITICISM.    THE  SCHISM     .     .  292 

XII.  WYCLIF  AND  Huss 298 

XIII.  THE  REFORMING  COUNCILS 306 

XIV.  THE  ITALIAN  RENAISSANCE  AND  ITS  POPES 313 

XV.  THE  NEW  NATIONAL  POWERS 320 

XVI.  RENAISSANCE  AND  OTHER  INFLUENCES  NORTH  OF  THE  ALPS  326 


20       ,(\ 

26X/ 


PERIOD  VI.    THE  REFORMATION 

I.    THE  LUTHERAN  REVOLUTION 3-35 

II.    SEPARATIONS  AND  DIVISIONS 349 

III.  THE  Swiss  REVOLT .     .  359 

IV.  THE  ANABAPTISTS 366 

V.    GERMAN  PROTESTANTISM  ESTABLISHED 370 

VI.    THE  SCANDINAVIAN  LANDS 382 

VII.    REVOLT  IN  FRENCH  SWITZERLAND  AND  GENEVA  BEFORE 

CALVIN 386 

VIII.    JOHN  CALVIN 389 

IX.    THE  ENGLISH  REVOLT 401 

X.    THE  SCOTTISH  REVOLT 415 

XI.    THE  ROMAN  REVIVAL 422 

XII.    THE    STRUGGLE    IN    FRANCE,    THE    NETHERLANDS,    AND 

ENGLAND 430 

XIII.  GERMAN  CONTROVERSIES  AND  THE  THIRTY  YEARS'  WAR  .  441 

XIV.  SOCINIANISM 451 

XV.    ARMINIANISM 453 

XVI.  ANGLICANISM,  PURITANISM,  AND  CONGREGATIONALISM  IN 
ENGLAND.  EPISCOPACY  AND  PRESBYTERIANISM  IN  SCOT 
LAND  457 

XVII.    THE  QUAKERS  478 


CONTENTS  xiii 

PERIOD  VII.    THE  TRANSITION  TO  THE  MODERN  RELIGIOUS 

SITUATION 

PAGE 

I.    THE  TURNING  POINT 481 

II.    THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  MODERN  SCIENCE  AND  PHILOSOPHY  483 

III.  DEISM*  AND  ITS  OPPONENTS.    SCEPTICISM 487 

IV.  ENGLISH  UNITARIANISM 494 

V.    PIETISM  IN  GERMANY 495 

VI.      ZlNZENDORF  AND   MORAVIANISM 501 

VII.    WESLEY  AND  METHODISM 507 

VIII.    SOME  EFFECTS  OF  METHODISM 518 

IX.    THE  MISSIONARY  AWAKENING 522 

X.    THE  GERMAN  ENLIGHTENMENT  (AUFKLARUNG)    ....  524 

XL    ROMANTICISM 529 

XII.    FURTHER  GERMAN  DEVELOPMENTS 536 

XIII.  ENGLAND  IN  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY 544 

XIV.  SCOTTISH  DIVISIONS  AND  REUNIONS 552 

XV.    ROMAN  CATHOLICISM 555 

XVI.    AMERICAN  CHRISTIANITY 564 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS 591 

INDEX 605 

MAPS 

LANDS    ABOUT    THE    EASTERN    MEDITERRANEAN    IN    THE    FIRST 

CENTURY 28 

EUROPE  IN  THE  TIME  OF  CHARLEMAGNE 206 

THE  CRUSADES 240 

EUROPE  DURING  THE  REFORMATION  .  350 


PERIOD  I.    FROM  THE  BEGINNINGS  TO  THE 
*      GNOSTIC  CRISIS 

;     SECTION   I.      THE    GENERAL   SITUATION 

THE  birth  of  Christ  saw  the  lands  which  surrounded  the 
Mediterranean  in  the  possession  of  Rome.  To  a  degree  never 
before  equalled,  and  unapproached  in  modern  times,  these  vast 
territories,  which  embraced  all  that  common  men  knew  of 
civilized  life,  were  under  the  sway  of  a  single  type  of  culture. 
The  civilizations  of  India  or  of  China  did  not  come  within  the 
vision  of  the  ordinary  inhabitant  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Out 
side  its  borders  he  knew  only  savage  or  semicivilized  tribes. 
The  Roman  Empire  and  the  world  of  civilized  men  were  co 
extensive.  All  was  held  together  by  allegiance  to  a  single  Em 
peror,  and  by  a  common  military  system  subject  to  him.  The 
Roman  army,  small  in  comparison  with  that  of  a  modern  ^mili 
tary  state,  was  adequate  to  preserve  the  Roman  peace.  Under 
that  peace  commerce  flourished,  communication  was  made  easy 
by  excellent  roads  and  by  sea,  and  among  educated  men,  at 
least  in  the  larger  towns,  a  common  language,  that  of  Greece, 
facilitated  the  interchange  of  thought.  It  was  an  empire  that, 
in  spite  of  many  evil  rulers  and  corrupt  lower  officials,  secured 
a  rough  justice  such  as  the  world  had  never  before  seen;  and 
its  citizens  were  proud  of  it  and  of  its  achievements. 

Yet  with  all  its  unity  of  imperial  authority  and  military 
control,  Rome  was  far  from  crushing  local  institutions.  In 
domestic  matters  the  inhabitants  of  the  provinces  were  largely 
self-governing.  Their  local  religious  observances  were  generally 
respected.  Among  the  masses  the  ancient  languages  and 
customs  persisted.  Even  native  rulers  were  allowed  a  limited 
sway  in  portions  of  the  empire,  as  native  states  still  persist 
under  British  rule  in  India.  Such  a  land  was  Palestine  at  the 
time  of  Christ's  birth.  Not  a  little  of  the  success  of  Rome  as 
mistress  of  its  diverse  subject  population  was  due  to  this  con 
siderate  treatment  of  local  rights  and  prejudices.  The  diver- 

1 


2       THE  GENERAL  RELIGIOUS  BACKGROUND 

sity  in  the  empire  was  scarcely  less  remarkable  than  its  unity. 
This  variety  was  nowhere  more  apparent  than  in  the  realm  of 
religious  thought. 

Christianity  entered  no  empty  world.  Its  advent  found 
men's  minds  filled  with  conceptions  of  the  universe,  of  religion, 
of  sin,  and  of  rewards  and  punishments,  with  which  it  had  to 
reckon  and  to  which  it  had  to  adjust  itself.  Christianity 
could  not  build  on  virgin  soil.  The  conceptions  which  it  found 
already  existing  formed  much  of  the  material  with  which  it 
must  erect  its  structure.  Many  of  these  ideas  are  no  longer 
those  of  the  modern  world.  The  fact  of  this  inevitable  inter 
mixture  compels  the  student  to  distinguish  the  permanent  from 
the  transitory  in  Christian  thought,  though  the  process  is  one 
of  exceeding  difficulty,  and  the  solutions  given  by  various 
scholars  are  diverse. 

Certain  factors  in  the  world  of  thought  into  which  Chris 
tianity  came  belong  to  universal  ancient  religion  and  are  of 
hoary  antiquity.    All  men,  except  a  few  representatives  of 
philosophical   sophistication,   believed   in   the   existence   of  a 
power,  or  of  powers,  invisible,  superhuman,  and  eternal,  con 
trolling  human  destiny,  and  to  be  worshipped  or  placated  by 
prayer,  ritual,  or  sacrifice.    The  earth  was  viewed  as  the  cen 
tre  of  the  universe.    Around  it  the  sun,  planets,  and  stars  ran 
their  courses.    Above  it  was  the  heaven;  below  tfce  abode  of 
departed  spirits  or  of  the  wicked.    No  conception  of  what  is  now 
called  natural  law  had  penetrated  the  popular  mind.    All  the 
ongoings  of  nature  were  the  work  of  invisible  powers  of  good 
and  evil,  who  ruled  arbitrarily.     Miracles  were,  therefore,  A~ 
be  regarded  not  merely  as  possible;   they  were  to  be  expect(  d 
whenever  the  higher  forces  would  impress  men  witji  the  in 
portant  or  the  unusual.    The  world  was  the  abode  of  inm 
merable  spirits,  righteous  or  malevolent,  who  touched  human  li 
in  all  its  phases,  and  who  even  entered  into  such  possession  < 
men  as  to  control  their  actions  for  good  or  ill.    A  profoun 
sense  of  unworthiness,  of  ill  desert,  and  of  dissatisfaction  wit 
the  "existing  conditions  of  life  characterized  the  mass  of  mar 
kind.    The  varied  forms  of  religious  manifestation  were  ev 
dences  of  the  universal  need  of  better  relations  with  the  spiritu* 
and  unseen,  and  of  men's  Jonging  for  help  greater  than  an. 
they  could  give  one  another. 

Besides  these  general  conceptions  common  to  popular  re 


GREEK  PHILOSOPHY,  SOCRATES  3 

ligion,  the  world  into  which  Christianity  came  owed  much  to 
the  specific  influence  of  Greek  thought.  Hellenistic  ideas 
dominated  the  intelligence  of  the  Roman  Empire,  but  their 
sway  was  extensive  only  among  the  more  cultivated  portion  of 
the  population.  Greek  philosophic  speculation  at  first  con 
cerned  itself  wi/th  the  explanation  of  the  physical  universe. 
Yet  with  Heraclitus  of  Ephesus  (about  B.  C.  490),  though  all 
was  viewed  as  in  a  sense  physical,  the  universe,  which  is  in 
constant  flow,  is  regarded  as  fashioned  by  a  fiery  element,  the 
all-penetrating  reason,  of  which  men's  souls  are  a  part.  Here 
was  probably  the  germ  of  the  Logos  (Xrfyo?)  conception  which 
was  to  play  such  a  role  in  later  Greek  speculation  and  Chris 
tian  theology.  As  yet  this  shaping  element  was  undistinguished 
from  material  warmth  or  fire.  Anaxagoras  of  Athens  (about 
B.  C.  500-428)  taught  that  a  shaping  mind  (wO?)  acted  in 
the  ordering  of  matter  and  is  independent  of  it.  The  Pythag 
oreans,  of  southern  Italy,  held  that  spirit  is  immaterial,  and 
that  souls  are  fallen  spirits  imprisoned  in  material  bodies.  To 
this  belief  in  immaterial  existence  they  seem  to  have  been  led 
by  a  consideration  of  the  properties  of  numbers — permanent 
truths  beyond  the  realm  of  matter  and  not  materially  dis 
cerned. 

To  Socrates  (B.C.  470?-399)  the  explanation  of  man  him 
self,  not  ofr  the  universe,  was  the  prime  object  of  thought. 
Man's  conduct,  that  is  morals,  was  the  most  important  theme 
of  investigation.  Right  action  is  based  on  knowledge,  and 
will  result  in  the  four~virtues — prudence,  courage,  self-control, 
and  justice — which,  as  the  "natural  virtues,"  were  to  have  their 

Jemiifent  place  in  mediaeval  Christian  theology.  This  identi 
fication  of  virtue  with  knowledge,  the  doctrine  that  to  know 
will  invorve  dottig,  was  indeed  a  disastrous  legacy  to  all  Greek 
thinking,  and  influential  in  much  Christian  speculation,  nota 
bly  in  the  Gnosticism  of  the  second  century. 

In  Socrates's  disciple,  Plata,(B.  C.  427-347),  the  early  Greek 
mind  reached  its  highest  spiritual  attainment.  He  is  properly 
describable  as  a  man  of  mystical  piety,  as  well  as  of  the  pro- 
foundest  spiritual  insight.  To  Plato  the  passing  forms  of  this 
visible  world  give  no  real  knowledge.  That  knowledge  of  the 
truly  permanent  and  real  comes  from  our  acquaintance  with 
the  "ideas,"  those  changeless  archetypal,  universal  patterns 
which  exist  in  the  invisible  spiritual  world — the  "intelligible" 


4  PLATO  AND  ARISTOTLE 

world,  since  known  by  reason  rather  than  by  the  senses — and 
give  whatever  of  reality  is  shared  by  the  passing  phenomena 
present  to  our  senses.  The  soul  knew  these  "ideas"  in  pre 
vious  existence.  The  phenomena  of  the  visible  world  call  to 
remembrance  these  once  known  "ideas."  The  soul,  existing 
before  the  body,  must  be  independent  of  it,  and  not  affected 
by  its  decay.  This  conception  of  immortality  as  an  attribute 
of  the  soul,  not  shared  by  the  body,  was  always  influential  in 
Greek  thought  and  stood  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  Hebrew 
doctrine  of  resurrection.  All  "ideas"  are  not  of  equal  worth. 
The  highest  are  those  of  the  true,  the  beautiful,  and  especially 
of  the  good.  A  clear  perception  of  a  personal  God,  as  embodied 
in  the  "idea"  of  the  good,  was  perhaps  not  attained  by  Plato; 
but  he  certainly  approached  closely  to  it.  The  good  rules  the 
world,  not  chance.  It  is  the  source  of  all  lesser  goods,  and  de 
sires  to  be  imitated  in  the  actions  of  men.  The  realm  of- 
"ideas"  is  the  true  home  of  the  soul,  which  finds  its  highest 
satisfaction  in  communion  with  them.  Salvation  is  the  recov 
ery  of  the  vision  of  the  eternal  goodness  and  beauty. 

Aristotle  (B.  C.  384-322)  was  of  a  far  less  mystical  spirit 
than  Plato.  To  him  the  visible  world  was  an  unquestioned 
reality.  He  discarded  Plato's  sharp  discrimination  between 
"ideas"  and  phenomena.  Neither  exist  without  the  other. 
Each  existence  is  a  substance,  the  result,  save  in  the  case  of 
God,  who  is  purely  immaterial,  of  the  impress  of  "  idea,"  as  the 
formative  force,  on  matter  which  is  the  content.  Matter  in 
itself  is  only  potential  substance.  It  has  always  existed,  yet 
never  without  form.  Hence  the  world  is  eternal,  for  a  realm 
of  "ideas"  antecedent  to  their  manifestation  in  phenomena 
does -not  exist.  The  world  is  the  prime  object  of  knowledge, 
and  Aristotle  is  therefore  in  a  true  sense  a  scientist.  Its 
changes  demand  the  initiation  of  a  "prime  mover,"  who  is 
Himself  unmoved.  Hence  Aristotle  presents  this  celebrated 
argument  for  the  existence  of  God.  But  the  "prime  mover" 
works  with  intelligent  purpose,  and  God  is,  therefore,  not 
only  the  beginning  but  the  end  of  the  process  of  the  world's 
development.  Man  belongs  to  the  world  of  substances,  but 
in  him  there  is  not  merely  the  body  and  sensitive  "soul"  of  the 
animal;  there  is  also  a  divine  spark,  a  Logos  (Xcfyo?),  which  he 
shares  with  God,  and  which  is  eternal,  though,  unlike  Plato's 
conception  of  spirit,  essentially  impersonal.  In  morals  Aris- 


EPICUREANISM  5 

1 

Itotle  held  that  happiness,  or  well-being,  is  the  aim,  and  is  at 
tained  by  a  careful  maintenance  of  the  golden  mean. 

Greek  philosophy  did  not  advance  much  scientifically  be 
yond  Plato  and  Aristotle,  but  they  had  little  direct  influence 
at  the  time  of  Christ.  Two  centuries  and  a  half  after  His 
birth,  a  modified  Platonism,  Neo-Platonism,  was  to  arise,  of 
great  importance,  which  profoundly  affected  Christian  the 
ology,  notably  that  of  Augustine.  Aristotle  was  powerfully 
to  influence  the  scholastic  theology  of  the  later  Middle  Ages. 
Those  older  Greek  philosophers  had  viewed  man  chiefly  in  the 
light  of  his  value  to  the  state.  The  conquests  of  Alexander, 
who  died  B.  C.  323,  wrought  a  great  change  in  men's  outlook. 
Hellenic  culture  was  planted  widely  over  the  Eastern  world, 
but  the  small  Greek  states  collapsed  as  independent  political 
entities.  It  was  difficult  longer  to  feel  that  devotion  to  the  new 
and  vast  political  units  that  a  little,  independent  Athens  had, 
for  instance,  won  from  its  citizens.  The  individual  as  an  inde 
pendent  entity  was  emphasized.  Philosophy  had  to  be  inter 
preted  in  terms  of  individual  life.  How  could  the  individual 
make  the  most  of  himself?  Two  great  answers  were  given, 
one  of  which  was  wholly  foreign  to  the  genius  of  Christianity, 
and  could  not  be  used  by  it;  the  other  only  partially  foreign, 
and  therefore  destined  profoundly  to  influence  Christian  the 
ology.  These  were  Epicureanism  and  Stoicism. 

Epicurus  (B.  C.  342-270),  most  of  whose  life  was  spent  in 
Athens,  taught  that  mental  bliss  is  the  highest  aim  of  man. 
This  state  is  most  perfect  when  passive.  It  is  the  absence  of 
all  that  disturbs  and  annoys.  Hence  Epicurus  himself  does 
not  deserve  the  reproaches  often  cast  upon  his  system.  In 
deed,  in  his  own  life,  he  was  an  ascetic.  The  worst  foes  of 
mental  happiness  he  taught  are  groundless/  fears.  Of  these 
the  chief  are  dread  of  the  anger  of  the  gods  and  of  death.  Both 
are  baseless.  The  gods  exist,  but  they  did  not  create  nor  do 
they  govern  the  world,  which  Epicurus  holds,  with  Democritus 
(B.  C.  470?-3SO?),  was  formed  by  the  chance  and  ever-changing 
combinations  of  eternally  existing  atoms.  All  islnaterial,  even 
tlie  soul  of  man  and  the  gods  themselves.  DeatlTelrids  all,  but 
is  no  evi£  since  "in  it  there  is  no  consciousness  remaining. 
Hence,  as  far  as  it  was  a  religion,  Epicureanism  was  one  of  in 
difference.  The  school  spread  widely.  The  Roman  poet  Lu 
cretius  (B.  C.  98?-55),  in  his  brilliant  De  Rerum  Natura,  gave 


6  STOICISM 

expression  to  the  worthier  side  of  Epicureanism ;  but  the  influ 
ence  of  the  system  as  a  whole  was  destructive  and  toward  a 
sensual  view  of  happiness. 

Contemporarily  with  Epicurus,  Euhemerus  (about  B.  C.  300) 
taught  that  the  gods  of  the  old  religions  were  simply  deified 
men,  about  whom  myths  and  tradition  had  cast  a  halo  of 
divinity.  He  found  a  translator  and  advocate  in  the  Roman 
poet  Ennius  (B.C.  239?-170?).  Parallel  with  Epicureanism, 
in  the  teaching  of  Pyrrho  of  Elis  (B.  C.  360?-270?),  and  his 
followers,  a  wholly  sceptical  point  of  view  was  presented.  Not 
merely  can  the  real  nature  of  things  never  be  understood,  but 
the  best  course  of  action  is  equally  dubious.  In  practice 
Pyrrho  found,  like  Epicurus,  the  ideal  of  life  one  of  withdrawal 
from  all  that  annoys  or  disturbs.  With  all  these  theories 
Christianity  could  have  nothing  in  common,  and  they  in  turn 
did  not  affect  it. 

The  other  great  answer  was  that  of  Stoicism,  the  noblest 
type  of  ancient  pagan  ethical  thought,  the  nearest  in  some  re 
spects  to  Christianity,  and  in  others  remote  from  it.  Its  lead 
ers  wereZeno  (B.  C.?-264?),  Cleanthes  (B.  C.  301?-232?),  and 
Chrysippus  (B.  C.  280?-207?).  Though  developed  in  Athens,  it 
flourished  best  outside  of  Greece,  and  notably  in  Rome,  where 
Seneca  (B.  C.  3?-A.  D.  65),  Epictetus  (A.  D.  60?-?),  and  the 
Emperor,  Marcus  Aurelius  (A.  D.  121-180),  had  great  influence. 
It  was  powerfully  represented  in  Tarsus  during  the  early  life 
of  the  Apostle  Paul.  Stoicism  was  primarily  a  great  ethical 
system,  yet  not  without  claims  to  be  considered  a  religion. 
Its  thought  of  the  universe  was  curiously  materialistic.  All 
that  is  real  is  physical.  Yet  there  is  great  difference  in  the 
fineness  of  bodies,  and  the  coarser  are  penetrated  by  the  finer. 
Hence  fine  and  coarse  correspond  roughly  to  the  common  dis 
tinctions  between  spirit  and  matter.  Stoicism  approximated, 
though  it  much  modified,  the  view  of  Heraclitus.  The  source 
of  all,  and  the  shaping,  harmonizing  influence  in  the  universe 
is  the  vital  warmth,  from  which  all  has  developed  by  differing 
degrees  of  tension,  which  interpenetrates  all  things,  and  to 
which  all  will  return.  Far  more  than  Heraclitus's  fire,  which 
it  resembles,  it  is  the  intelligent,  self-conscious  world-soul,  an  all 
indwelling  reason,  Logos  (Xcfyo?),  of  which  our  reason  is  a  part. 
It  is  God,  the  life  and  wisdom  of  all.  It  is  truly  within  us. 
We  can  "follow  the  God  within" ;  and  by  reason  of  it  one  can 


STOICISM  7 

say,  as  Cleanthes  did  of  Zeus:  "We  too  are  thy  offspring." 
The  popular  gods  are  simply  names  for  the  forces  that  stream 
out  from  God. 

Since  one  wisdom  exists  in  all  the  world,  there  is  one  natural 
law,  one  rule  of  conduct  for  all  men.  All  are  morally  free. 
Since  all  are  frfom  God,  all  men  are  brothers.  Differences  in 
station  in  life  are  accidental.  To  follow  reason  in  the  place  in 
which  one  finds  oneself  is  the  highest  duty,  and  is  equally 

J  praiseworthy  whether  a  man  is  an  Emperor  or  a  slave.  So  to 
obey  reason,  the  Logos,  is  the  sole  object  of  pursuit.  Happiness 
is  no  just  aim,  though  duty  done  brings  a  certain  happiness 
purely  as  a  by-product.  The  chief  enemies  of  a  perfect  obedi 
ence  are  passions  and  lusts,  which  pervert  the  judgment. 
These  must  resolutely  be  put  aside.  God  inspires  all  good 
acts,  though  the  notion  of  God  is  essentially  pantheistic. 

The  strenuous  ascetic  attitude  of  Stoicism,  its  doctrine  of  the 
all-pervading  and  all-ruling  divine  wisdom,  Logos  (Xctyo?),  its 
i  insistence  that  all  who  do  well  are  equally  deserving,  whatever 
their  station,  and  its  assertion  of  the  essential  brotherhood  of 
/  all  men,  were  profoundly  to  affect  Christian  theology.  In  its 
(  highest  representatives  the  creed  and  its  results  were  noble. 
It  was,  however,  too  often  hard,  narrow,  and  unsympathetic. 
It  was  for  the  few.  It  recognized  that  the  many  could  never 
reach  its  standards.  Its  spirit  was  too  often  one  of  pride. 
That  of  Christianity  is  one  of  humility.  Still  it  produced  re 
markable  effects.  Stoicism  gave  Rome  excellent  Emperors  and 
many  lesser  officials.  Though  it  never  became  a  really  popular 
creed,  it  was  followed  by  many  of  high  influence  and  position 
in  the  Roman  world,  and  modified  Roman  law  for  the  better. 
It  introduced  into  jurisprudence  the  conception  of  a  law  of 
nature,  expressed  in  reason,  and  above  all  arbitrary  human 
statutes.  By  its  doctrine  that  all  men  are  by  nature  equal,  the 
worst  features  of  slavery  were  gradually  ameliorated,  and 
Roman  citizenship  widely  extended. 

One  may  say  that  the  best  educated  thought  in  Rome  and 
the  provinces,  by  the  time  of  Christ,  in  spite  of  wide-spread 
Epicureanism  and  Scepticism,  inclined  to  pantheistic  Mono 
theism,  to  the  conception  of  God  as  good,  in  contrast  to  the 
non-moral  character  of  the  old  Greek  and  Roman  deities,  to 
belief  in  a  ruling  divine  providence,  to  the  thought  that  true 
religion  is  not  ceremonies  but  an  imitation  of  the  moral  quali- 


8  POPULAR  RELIGION 

ties  of  God,  and  toward  a  humaner  attitude  to  men.  The  two 
elements  lacking  in  this  educated  philosophy  were  those  of 
certainty  such  as  could  only  be  given  by  belief  in  a  divine 
revelation,  and  of  that  loyalty  to  a  person  which  Christianity 
was  to  emphasize. 

The  common  people,  however,  shared  in  few  of  these  bene 
fits.  They  lay  in  gross  superstition.  If  the  grip  of  the  old 
religions  of  Greece  and  Rome  had  largely  relaxed,  they  never* 
theless  believed  in  gods  many  and  lords  many.  Every  town 
had  its  patron  god  or  goddess,  every  trade,  the  farm,  the  spring, 
the  household,  the  chief  events  of  life,  marriage,  childbirth. 
These  views,  too,  were  ultimately  to  appear  in  Christian  his 
tory  transmuted  into  saint-worship.  Soothsayers  and  magi 
cians  drove  a  thriving  trade  among  the  ignorant,  and  none 
were  more  patronized  than  those  of  Jewish  race.  Above  all, 
the  common  people  were  convinced  that  the  maintenance  of 
the  historic  religious  cult  of  the  ancient  gods  was  necessary 
for  the  safety  and  perpetuity  of  the  state.  If  not  observed, 
the  gods  wreaked  vengeance  in  calamities — an  opinion  that  was 
the  source  of  much  later  persecution  of  Christianity.  These 
popular  ideas  were  not  vigorously  opposed  by  the  learned, 
who  largely  held  that  the  old  religions  had  a  police  value. 
They  regarded  the  state  ceremonies  as  a  necessity  for  the  com 
mon  man.  Seneca  put  the  philosophical  opinion  bluntly  when 
he  declared  that  "the  wise  man  will  observe  all  religious  usages 
as  commanded  by  the  law,  not  as  pleasing  to  the  gods."  The 
lowest  point  in  popular  religious  feeling  in  the  Roman  Empire 
corresponds  roughly  to  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Christ. 
/  The  abler  Emperors  strove  to  strengthen  and  modify  the 
\Jancient  popular  worships,  for  patriotic  reasons,  into  worship 
of  the  state  and  of  its  head.  This  patriotic  deification  of  the 
Roman  state  began,  indeed,  in  the  days  of  the  republic.  The 
worship  of  the  "Dea  Roma"  may  be  found  in  Smyrna  as  early 
as  B.  C.  195.  This  reverence  was  strengthened  by  the  popu 
larity  of  the  empire  in  the  provinces  as  securing  them  better 
government  than  that  of  the  republic.  As  early  as  B.  C.  29, 
Pergamum  had  a  temple  to  Rome  and  Augustus.  This  worship, 
directed  to  the  ruler  as  the  embodiment  of  the  state,  or  rather 
to  his  "genius"  or  indwelling  spirit,  spread  rapidly.  It  soon 
had  an  elaborate  priesthood  under  state  patronage,  divided 
and  organized  by  provinces,  and  celebrating  not  only  worship 


WORSHIP  OF  THE  STATE  9 

but  annual  games  on  a  large  scale.  It  was  probably  the  most 
highly  developed  organization  of  a  professedly  religious  char 
acter  under  the  early  empire,  and  the  degree  to  which  it  ulti 
mately  affected  Christian  institutions  awaits  further  investiga 
tion.  From  a  modern  point  of  view  there  was  much  more  of 
patriotism  than  of  religion  in  this  system.  Christian  mission 
aries  in  Japan  have  solved  a  similar,  though  probably  less  diffi 
cult,  situation  by  holding  reverence  to  the  Emperor  to  be 
purely  patriotic.  But  early  Christian  feeling  regarded  this 
worship  of  the  Emperor  as  utterly  irreconcilable  with  allegiance 
to  Christ.  The  feeling  is  shown  in  the  description  of  Pergamum 
in  Revelation  213.  Christian  refusal  to  render  the  worship  seemed 
treasonable,  and  was  the  great  occasion  of  the  martyrdoms. 

Men  need  a  religion  deeper  than  philosophy  or  ceremonies. 
Philosophy  satisfies  only  the  exceptional  man.  Ceremonies 
avail  far  more,  but  not  those  whose  thoughts  are  active,  or 
whose  sense  of  personal  unworthiness  is  keen.  Some  attempt 
was  made  to  revive  the  dying  older  popular  paganism.  The 
earlier  Emperors  were,  many  of  them,  extensive  builders  and 
patrons  of  temples.  The  most  notable  effort  to  effect  a  revival 
and  purification  of  popular  religion  was  that  of  Plutarch  (A.  D. 
46?-120?),  of  Chseronea  in  Greece,  which  may  serve  as  typical 
of  others.  He  criticised  the  traditional  mythology.  All  that 
implied  cruel  or  morally  unworthy  actions  on  the  part  of  the 
gods  he  rejected.  There  is  one  God.  All  the  popular  gods 
are  His  attributes  personified,  or  subordinate  spirits.  Plutarch 
had  faith  in  oracles,  special  providences,  and  future  retribution. 
He  taught  a  strenuous  morality.  His  attempt  to  wake  up 
what  was  best  in  the  dying  older  paganism  was  a  hopeless 
task  and  won  few  followers. 

The  great  majority  of  those  who  felt  religious  longings  simply 
adopted  Oriental  religions,  especially  those  of  a  redemptive  na 
ture  in  which  mysticism  or  sacramentalism  were  prominent  fea 
tures.  Ease  of  communication,  and  especially  the  great -influx 
of  Oriental  slaves  into  the  western  portion  of  the  Roman  world 
during  the  later  republic  facilitated  this  process.  The  spread 
of  these  faiths  independent  of,  and  to  a  certain  extent  as  rivals 
of,  Christianity  during  the  first  three  centuries  of  our  era  made 
that  epoch  one  of  deepening  religious  feeling  throughout  the  em 
pire,  and,  in  that  sense,  undoubtedly  facilitated  the  ultimate^ 
triumph  of  Christianity.  ' 

J- 


10  MYSTERY  RELIGIONS 

One  such  Oriental  religion,  of  considerably  extended  appeal, 
though  with  little  of  the  element  of  mystery,  was  Judaism,  of 
which  there  will  be  occasion  to  speak  more  fully  in  another 
connection.  The  popular  mind  turned  more  largely  to  other 
Oriental  cults,  of  greater  mystery,  or  rather  of  larger  redemp 
tive  sacramental  significance.  Their  meaning  for  the  religious 
development  of  the  Roman  world  has  been  only  recently  ap 
preciated  at  anything  like  its  true  value.  The  most  popular  of 
these  Oriental  religions  were  those  of  the  Great  Mother  (Cybele) 
and  Attis,  originating  in  Asia  Minor ;  of  Isis  and  Serapis  from 
Egypt ;  and  of  Mithras  from  Persia.  At  the  same  time  there 
was  much  syncretistic  mixture  of  these  religions,  one  with 
another,  and  with  the  older  religions  of  the  lands  to  which  they 
came.  That  of  the  Great  Mother,  which  was  essentially  a 
primitive  nature  worship,  accompanied  by  licentious  rites, 
reached  Rome  in  B.  C.  204,  and  was  the  first  to  gain  extensive 
foothold  in  the  West.  That  of  Isis  and  Serapis,  with  its  em 
phasis  on  regeneration  and  a  future  life,  was  well  established  in 
Rome  by  B.  C.  80,  but  had  long  to  endure  governmental  oppo 
sition.  That  of  Mithras,  the  noblest  of  all,  though  having  an 
extended  history  in  the  East,  did  not  become  conspicuous  at 
Rome  till  toward  the  year  A.  D.  100,  and  its  great  spread  was 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  and  during  the  third  centuries. 
It  was  especially  beloved  of  soldiers.  In  the  later  years,  at 
least  of  its  progress  in  the  Roman  Empire,  Mithras  was  identi 
fied  with  the  sun — the  Sol  Invictus  of  the  Emperors  just  before 
Constantine.  Like  other  religions  of  Persian  origin,  its  view  of 
the  universe  was  dualistic. 

All  these  religions  taught  a  redeemer-god.  All  held  that  the 
initiate  shared  in  symbolic  (sacramental)  fashion  the  experiences 
of  the  god,  died  with  him,  rose  with  him,  became  partakers  of 
the  divine  nature,  usually  through  a  meal  shared  symbolically 
with  him,  and  participated  in  his  immortality.  All  had  secret 
rites  for  the  initiated.  All  offered  mystical  (sacramental) 
cleansing  from  sin.  In  the  religion  of  Isis  and  Serapis  that 
cleansing  was  by  bathing  in  sacred  water;  in  those  of  the 
Great  Mother  and  of  Mithras  by  the  blood  of  a  bull,  the  tau- 
robolium,  by  which,  as  recorded  in  inscriptions,  the  initiate  was 
"reborn  forever."  All  promised  a  happy  future  life  for  the 
faithful.  All  were  more  or  less  ascetic  in  their  attitude  toward 
the  world.  Some,  like  Mithraism,  taught  the  brotherhood  and 


THE  SITUATION  IN  THE  HEATHEN  WORLD    11 

essential  equality  of  all  disciples.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  development  of  the  early  Christian  doctrine  of  the  sacra 
ments  was  affected,  if  not  directly  by  these  religions,  at  least 
by  the  religious  atmosphere  which  they  helped  to  create  and 
tojwhich  they  were  congenial. 

In  summing  up  the  situation  in  the  heathen  iffnrifl  fit  ^^ 
corning  of  Christ,  one  musifsay  that,  amid  great  confusion,  and 
in  a  multitude  ot  forms  oi'  expression,  some  of  them  very  un 
worthy,  certain  religious  demands  are  evident.  A  religion  that 
should  meet  the  requirements  of  the  age  must  teach  one  right 
eous  God,  yet  find  place  for  numerous  spirits,  good  and  bad. 
It  must  possess  a  definite  revelation  of  the  will  of  God,  as  in 
Judaism,  that  is  an  authoritative  scripture.  It  must  inculcate 
a  world-denying  virtue,  based  on  moral  actions  agreeable  to 
the  will  and  character  of  God.  It  must  hold  forth  a  future  life 
with  rewards  and  punishments.  It  must  have  a  symbolic 
initiation  and  promise  a  real  forgiveness  of  sins.  It  must  pos 
sess  a  redeemer-god  into  union  with  whom  men  could  come  by 
certain  sacramental  acts.  It  must  teach  the  brotherhood  of 
all  men,  at  least  of  all  adherents  of  the  religion.  However 
simple  the  beginnings  of  Christianity  may  have  been,  Chris 
tianity  must  possess,  or  take  on,  all  these  traits  if  it  was  to 
conquer  the  Roman  Empire  or  to  become  a  world  religion.  It 
came  "in  the  fulness  of  time"  in  a  much  larger  sense  than  was 
formerly  thought;  and  no  one  who  believes  in  an  overruling 
providence  of  God  will  deny  the  fundamental  importance  of 
this  mighty  preparation,  even  if  some  of  the  features  of  Chris 
tianity's  early  development  bear  the  stamp  and  limitations  of 
the  time  and  have  to  be  separated  from  the  eternal. 

SECTION   II.      THE  JEWISH   BACKGROUND 

The  external  course  of  events  had  largely  determined  the 
development  of  Judaism  in  the  six  centuries  preceding  the  birth 
of  Christ.  Judaea  had  been  under  foreign  political  control 
since  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadrezzar,  B.  C.  586. 
It  had  shared  the  fortunes  of  the  old  Assyrian  Empire  and  of 
its  successors,  the  Persian  and  that  of  Alexander.  After  the 
break-up  of  the  latter  it  came  under  the  control  of  the  Ptole 
mies  of  Egypt  and  then  of  the  Seleucid  dynasty  of  Antioch. 
While  thus  politically  dependent,  its  religious  institutions  were 


12  THE  LAW  AND  THE  SYNAGOGUE 

practically  undisturbed  after  their  restoration  consequent  upon 
the  Persian  conquest  of  Babylonia ;  and  the  hereditary  priestly 
families  were  the  real  native  aristocracy  of  the  land.  In  their 
higher  ranks  they  came  to  be  marked  by  political  interest  and 
religious  indifference.  The  high-priesthood  in  particular  became 
a  coveted  office  by  reason  of  its  pecuniary  and  political  influence. 
With  it  was  associated,  certainly  from  the  Greek  period,  a  body 
of  advisers  and  legal  interpreters,  the  Sanhedrim,  ultimately 
seventy-one  in  number.  Thus  administered,  the  temple  and  its 
priesthood  came  to  represent  the  more  formal  aspect  of  the  reli 
gious  life  of  the  Hebrews.  On  the  other  hand,  the  feeling  that 
they  were  a  holy  people  living  under  Yahwe's  holy  law,  their 
sense  of  religious  separatism,  and  the  comparative  cessation  of 
prophecy,  turned  the  nation  to  the  study  of  the  law,  which  was 
interpreted  by  an  ever-increasing  mass  of  tradition.  As  in  Mo 
hammedan  lands  to-day,  the  Jewish  law  was  at  once  religious 
precept  and  civil  statute.  Its  interpreters,  the  scribes,  became 
more  and  more  the  real  religious  leaders  of  the  people.  Juda 
ism  grew  to  be,  in  ever-increasing  measure,  the  religion  of  a 
sacred  scripture  and  its  mass  of  interpretative  precedent.  For 
a  fuller  understanding  and  administration  of  the  law,  and  for 
prayer  and  worship,  the  synagogue  developed  wherever  Judaism 
was  represented.  Its  origin  is  uncertain,  going  back  probably  to 
the  Exile.  In  its  typical  form  it  was  a  local  congregation  in 
cluding  all  Jews  of  the  district  presided  over  by  a  group  of 
"elders,"  having  often  a  "ruler"  at  its  head.  These  were  em 
powered  to  excommunicate  and  punish  offenders.  The  services 
were  very  simple  and  could  be  led  by  any  Hebrew,  though  usu 
ally  under  "  a  ruler  of  the  synagogue."  They  included  prayer, 
the  reading  of  the  law  and  the  prophets,  their  translation  and 
exposition  (sermon),  and  the  benediction.  Because  of  the  un 
representative  character  of  the  priesthood,  and  the  growing  im 
portance  of  the  synagogues,  the  temple,  though  highly  regarded, 
became  less  and  less  vital  for  the  religious  life  of  the  people  as 
the  time  of  Christ  is  approached,  and  could  be  totally  de 
stroyed  in  A.  D.  70,  without  any  overthrow  of  the  essential  ele 
ments  in"  Judaism. 

Under  the  Seleucid  Kings  Hellenizing  influences  came  strongly 
into  Judaea,  and  divided  the  claimants  for  the  high-priestly 
office.  The  forcible  support  of  Hellenism  by  Antiochus  IV, 
Epiphanes  (B.  C.  175-164),  and  its  accompanying  repression 


PHARISEES  AND  SADDUCEES  13 

of  Jewish  worship  and  customs,  led,  in  B.  C.  167,  to  the  great 
rebellion  headed  by  the  Maccabees,  and  ultimately  to  a  period 
of  Judsean  independence  which  lasted  till  the  conquest  by  the 
Romans  in  B.  C.  63.  This  Hellenizing  episode  brought  about 
a  profound  cleft  in  Jewish  life.  The  Maccabean  rulers  secured 
for  themselves*  the  high-priestly  office ;  but  though  the  family 
had  risen  to  leadership  by  opposition  to  Hellenism  and  by  re 
ligious  ;zeal,  it  gradually  drifted  toward  Hellenism  and  purely 
political  ambition.  Under  John  Hyrcanus,  the  Maccabean 
ruler  from  B.  C.  135  to  105,  the  distinction  between  the  re 
ligious  parties  of  later  Judaism  became  marked.  The  aristo 
cratic-political  party,  with  which  Hyrcanus  and  the  leading 
priestly  families  allied  themselves,  came  to  be  known  as  Sad 
ducees — a  title  the  meaning  and  antiquity  of  which  is  uncer 
tain.  It  was  essentially  a  worldly  party  without  strong  re 
ligious  conviction.  Many  of  the  views  that  the  Sadducees 
entertained  were  conservatively  representative  of  the  older 
Judaism.  Thus,  they  held  to  the  law  without  its  traditional 
interpretation,  and  denied  a  resurrection  or  a  personal  immor 
tality.  On  the  other  hand,  they  rejected  the  ancient  notion  of 
spirits,  good  or  bad.  Though  politically  influential,  they  were 
unpopular  with  the  mass  of  the  people,  who  opposed  all  foreign 
influences  and  stood  firmly  for  the  law  as  interpreted  by  the 
traditions.  The  most  thoroughgoing  representatives  of  this 
democratic-legalistic  attitude  were  the  Pharisees,  a  name  which 
signifies  the  Separated,  presenting  what  was  undoubtedly  a 
long  previously  existing  attitude,  though  the  designation  ap 
pears  shortly  before  the  time  of  John  Hyrcanus.  With  his 
reign  the  historic  struggle  of  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  begins. 

As  a  whole,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  Zealots,  or  men  of 
action,  sprang  from  them,_lhe  Pharisees  were  not  a  political 
party.  Though  they  held  the  admiration  of  a  majority  of  the 
people,  they  were  never  very  numerous.  The  ordinary  working 
Jew  lacked  the  education  in  the  minutiae  of  the  law  or  the  leisure 
to  become  a  Pharisee.  Their  attitude  toward  the  mass  of  Ju 
daism  wras  contemptuous.1  They  represented,  however,  views 
which  were  widely  entertained  and  were  in  many  respects 
normal  results  of  Jewish  religious  development  since  the  Exile. 
Their  prime  emphasis  was  on  the  exact  keeping  of  the  law  as 
interpreted  by  the  traditions.  They  held  strongly  to  the  ex- 

1  John  749. 


14  THE  MESSIANIC  HOPE 

istence  of  spirits,  good  and  bad — a  doctrine  of  angels  and  of 
Satan  that  had  apparently  received  a  powerful  impulse  from 
Persian  ideas.  They  represented  that  growth  of  a  belief  in 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  in  future  rewards  and  punish^ 
ments  which  had  seen  a  remarkable  development  during  the 
two  centuries  preceding  Christ's  birth.  They  held,  like  the 
people  generally,  to  the  Messianic  hope.  The  Pharisees,  from 
many  points  of  view,  were  deserving  of  no  little  respect.  From 
the  circle  infused  with  these  ideas  Christ's  disciples  were  largely 
to  come.  The  most  learned  of  the  Apostles  had  been  himself 
a  Pharisee,  and  called  himself  such  years  after  having  become 
a  Christian.1  Their  earnestness  was  praiseworthy.  The  great 
failure  of  Pharisaism  was  twofold.  It  looked  upon  religion  as 
the  keeping  of  an  external  law,  by  which  a  reward  was  earned. 
Such  keeping  involved  of  necessity  neither  a  real  inward  right 
eousness  of  spirit,  nor  a  warm  personal  relation  to  God.  It  also"* 
shut  out  from  the  divine  promises  those  whose  failures,  sins, 
and  imperfect  keeping  of  the  law  made  the  attainment  of  the 
Pharisaic  standard  impossible.  It  disinherited  the  " lost  sheep" 
of  the  house  of  Israel.  As  such  it  received  the  well-merited 
condemnation  of  Christ. 

The  Messianic  hope,  shared  by  the  Pharisees  and  common 
people  alike,  was  the  outgrowth  of  strong  national  conscious 
ness  and  faith  in  God.  It  was  most  vigorous  in  times  of  na 
tional  oppression.  Under  the  earlier  Maccabees,  when  a  God 
fearing  line  had  given  independence  to  the  people,  it  was  little 
felt.  The  later  Maccabees,  however,  deserted  their  family 
tradition.  The  Romans  conquered  the  land  in  B.  C.  63.  Nor 
was  the  situation  really  improved  from  a  strict  Jewish  stand 
point,  when  a  half-Jewish  adventurer,  Herod,  the  son  of  the 
Idumean  Antipater,  held  a  vassal  kingship  under  Roman  over- 
lordship  from  B.  C.  37  to  B.  C.  4.  In  spite  of  his  undoubted 
services  to  the  material  prosperity  of  the  land,  and  his  mag 
nificent  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  he  was  looked  upon  as  a  tool 
of  the  Romans  and  a  Hellenizer  at  heart.  The  Herodians  were 
disliked  by  Sadducees  and  Pharisees  alike.  On  Herod's  death 
his  kingdom  was  divided  between  three  of  his  sons,  Archelaus 
becoming  "ethnarch"  of  Judaea,  Samaria,  and  Idumea  (B.C. 
4-A.  D.  6);  Herod  Antipas  "tetrarch"  of  Galilee  and  Persea 
(B.  C.  4-A.  D.  39) ;  and  Philip  "tetrarch"  of  the  prevailingly 

1  Acts  236. 


OTHER  FORCES  IN  JUDAISM  15 

heathen  region  east  and  northeast  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  Arche- 
laus  aroused  bitter  enmity,  was  deposed  by  the  Emperor 
Augustus,  and  was  succeeded  by  a  Roman  procurator — the 
occupant  of  this  post  from  A.  D.  26  to  36  being  Pontius 
Pilate. 

With  such  hppelessly  adverse  political  conditions,  it  seemed 
as  if  the  Messianic  hope  could  be  realizable  only  by  divine  aid. 
By  the  time  of  Christ  that  hope  involved  the  destruction  of 
Roman  authority  by  supernatural  divine  intervention  through 
a  Messiah;  and  the  establishment  of  a  kingdom  of  God  in 
which  a  freed  and  all-powerful  Judaism  should  flourish  under 
a  righteous  Messianic  King  of  Davidic  descent,  into  which  the 
Jews  scattered  throughout  the  Roman  Empire  should  be  gath 
ered,  and  by  which  a  golden  age  would  be  begun.  To  the 
average  Jew  it  probably  meant  little  more  than  that,  by  divine 
intervention,  the  Romans  would  be  driven  out  and  the  kingdom 
restored  to  Israel.  A  wide-spread  belief,  based  on  Malachi  31, 
held  that  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  would  be  heralded  by  a 
forerunner. 

These  hopes  were  nourished  by  a  body  of  apocalyptic  litera 
ture,  pessimistic  as  to  the  present,  but  painting  in  brilliant 
color  the  age  to  come.  The  writings  were  often  ascribed  to 
ancient  worthies.  Such  in  the  Old  Testament  canon  is  the 
prophecy  of  Daniel,  such  without  are  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the 
Assumption  of  Moses,  and  a  number  of  others.  A  specimen  of 
this  class  of  literature  from  a  Christian  point  of  view,  but  with 
much  use  of  Jewish  conceptions,  is  Revelation  in  the  New  Testa 
ment.  These  nourished  a  forward-looking,  hopeful  religious 
attitude  that  must  have  served  in  a  measure  to  offset  the  strict 
legalism  of  the  Pharisaic  interpretation  of  the  law. 

Other  currents  of  religious  life  were  moving  also  in  Palestine, 
the  extent  of  which  it  is  impossible  to  estimate,  but  the  reality 
of  which  is  evident.  In  the  country  districts  especially,  away 
from  the  centres  of  official  Judaism,  there  was  a  real  mystical 
piety.  It  was  that  of  the  later  Psalms  and  of  the  "poor  in 
spirit"  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  "Magnificat"  and 
"  Benedictus  " l  may  well  be  expressions  of  it.  To  this  mystic 
type  belong  also  the  recently  discovered  so-called  Odes  of  Solo 
mon.  From  this  simpler  piety,  in  a  larger  and  less  mystical 
sense,  came  prophetic  appeals  for  repentance,  of  which  those 
1  Luke  I46-"-  "•'», 


16  JUDAISM  OUTSIDE  PALESTINE 

of  John  the  Baptist  are  best  known.     It  was  not  Pharisaic,  but 
far  more  vital. 

One  further  conception  of  later  Judaism  is  of  importance  by 
reason  of  its  influence  on  the  development  of  Christian  theology. 
It  is  that  of  "wisdom/'  which  is  practically  personified  as  ex 
isting  side  by  side  with  God,  one  with  Him,  His  "possession" 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  His  agent  in  its  creation.1 
It  is  possible  that  the  influence  of  the  Stoic  thought  of  the  all- 
pervading  divine  Logos  (Xcfyo?)  is  here  to  be  seen ;  but  a  more 
ethical  note  sounds  than  in  the  corresponding  Greek  teaching. 
Yet  the  two  views  were  easy  of  assimilation. 

Palestine  is  naturally  first  in  thought  in  a  consideration  of 
Judaism.  It  was  its  home,  and  the  scene  of  the  beginnings  of 
Christianity.  Nevertheless  the  importance  of  the  dispersion 
of  the  Jews  outside  of  Palestine,  both  for  the  religious  life  of 
the  Roman  Empire  as  a  whole,  and  for  the  reflex  effect  upon 
Judaism  itself  of  the  consequent  contact  with  Hellenic  thought, 
was  great.  This  dispersion  had  begun  with  the  conquests  of 
the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  monarchs,  and  had  been  furthered 
by  many  rulers,  notably  by  the  Ptolemies  of  Egypt,  and  the 
great  Romans  of  the  closing  days  of  the  republic  and  the  dawn 
ing  empire.  Estimates  are  at  best  conjectural,  but  it  is  not  • 
improbable  that,  at  the  birth  of  Christ  there  were  five  or  six 
times  as  many  Jews  outside  of  Palestine  as  within  its  borders. 
They  were  a  notable  part  of  the  population  of  Alexandria. 
They  were  strongly  rooted  in  Syria  and  Asia  Minor.  They  were 
to  be  found,  if  in  relatively  small  numbers,  in  Rome.  Few 
cities  of  the  empire  were  without  their  presence.  Clannish  and 
viewed  with  little  favor  by  the  heathen  population,  they  pros 
pered  in  trade,  were  valued  for  their  good  qualities  by  the  rulers, 
their  religious  scruples  were  generally  respected,  and,  in  turn, 
they  displayed  a  missionary  spirit  which  made  their  religious 
impress  felt.  As  this  Judaism  of  the  dispersion  presented  it 
self  to  the  surrounding  heathen,  it  was  a  far  simpler  creed  than 
Palestinian  Pharisaism.  It  taught  one  God,  who  had  revealed 
His  will  in  sacred  Scriptures,  a  strenuous  morality,  a  future  life  "  . 
with  rewards  and  punishments,  ,and  a  few  relatively  simple 
commands  relating  to  the  Sabbath,  circumcision,  and  the  use 
of  meats.  It  carried  with  it  everywhere  the  synagogue,  with 
its  unelaborate  and  non-ritualistic  worship.  It  appealed  power- 
iProv.  319;  8;  Psalms  336. 


JUDAISM  HELLENIZED  17 

fully  to  many  heathens;  and,  besides  full  proselytes,  the  syn 
agogues  had  about  them  a  much  larger  penumbra  of  partially 
Judaized  converts,  the  "devout  men/'  wh'o  were  to  serve  as  a 
recruiting  ground  for  much  of  the  early  Christian  missionary 
propaganda. 

In  its  turn,  the.  Judaism  of  the  dispersion  was  much  influenced 
by  Hellenism,  especially  by  Greek  philosophy,  and  nowhere 
more  deeply  than  in  Egypt.  There,  in  Alexandria,  the  Old 
Testament  was  given  to  the  reading  world  in  Greek  translation, 
the  so-called  Septuagint,  as  early  as  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Phila- 
delphus  (B.  C.  285-246).  This  made  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
heretofore  locked  up  in  an  obscure  tongue,  widely  accessible. 
In  Alexandria,  also,  Old  Testament  religious  ideas  were  com 
bined  with  Greek  philosophical  conceptions,  notably  Platonic 
and  Stoic,  in  a  remarkable  syncretism.  The  most  influential 
of  these  Alexandrian  interpreters  was  Philo  (B.  C.  20?-A.  D. 
42?).  To  Philo,  the  Old  Testament  is  the  wisest  of  books,  a 
real  divine  revelation,  and  Moses  the  greatest  of  teachers ;  but 
by  allegorical  interpretation  Philo  finds  the  Old  Testament  in 
harmony  with  the  best  in  Platonism  and  Stoicism.  The  belief 
that  the  Old  Testament  and  Greek  philosophy  were  in  essential 
agreement  was  one  of  far-reaching  significance  for  the  develop 
ment  of  Christian  theology.  This  allegorical  method  of  Bib 
lical  explanation  was  greatly  to  influence  later  Christian  study 
of  the  Scriptures.  To  Philo,  the  one  God  made  the  world  as 
an  expression  of  His  goodness  to  His  creation;  but  between 
God  and  the  world  the  uniting  links  are  a  group  of  divine  powers, 
viewed  partly  as  attributes  of  God  and  partly  as  personal  exist 
ences.  Of  these  the  highest  is  the  Logos  (Xctyo?) ,  which  flows  out 
of  the  being  of  God  Himself,  and  is  the  agent  not  merely  through 
whom  God  created  the  world,  but  from  whom  all  other  powers 
flow.  Through  the  Logos  God  created  the  ideal  man,  of  whom 
actual  man  is  a  poor  copy,  the  work  of  lower  spiritual  powers 
as  well  as  of  the  Logos.  Even  from  his  fallen  state  man  may 
rise  to  connection  with  God  through  the  Logos,  the  agent  of 
divine  revelation.  Yet  Philo's  conception  of  the  Logos  is  far 
more  philosophical  than  that  of  "wisdom"  in  Proverbs,  of 
which  mention  has  been  made ;  and  the  source  of  the  New  Tes 
tament  Logos  doctrine  is  to  be  found  in  the  Hebrew  concep 
tion  of  "wisdom"  rather  than  in  the  thought  of  Philo.  He 
was,  however,  a  great  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  Hel- 


18  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

lenic  and  Hebrew  ideas  might  be  united,  and  were  actually  to 
be  united,  in  the  development  of  later  Christian  theology.  In 
no  other  portion  of  the  Roman  world  was  the  process  which 
Philo  represented  so  fully  developed  as  in  Alexandria. 

^  SECTION   III.      JESUS  AND  THE  DISCIPLES 

The  way  was  prepared  for  Jesus  by  John  the  Baptist,  in  the 
thought  of  the  early  Christians  the  "forerunner"  of  the  Mes 
siah.  Ascetic  in  life,  he  preached  in  the  region  of  the  Jordan 
that  the  day  of  judgment  upon  Israel  was  at  hand,  that  the 
Messiah  was  about  to  come;  and  despising  all  formalism  in 
religion,  and  all  dependence  on  Abrahamic  descent,  he  pro 
claimed  in  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  prophets  their  message: 
"repent,  do  justice."  His  directions  to  the  various  classes  of 
his  hearers  were  simple  and  utterly  non-legalistic.1  He  bap 
tized  his  disciples  in  token  of  the  washing  away  of  their  sins ; 
he  taught  them  a  special  prayer.  Jesus  classed  him  as  the 
last  and  among  the  greatest  of  the  prophets.  Though  many 
of  his  followers  became  those  of  Jesus,  some  persisted  inde 
pendently  and  were,  to  be  found  as  late  as  Paul's  ministry  in 
Ephesus.2 

While  the  materials  are  lacking  for  any  full  biography  of 
Jesus  such  as  would  be  available  in  the  case  of  one  living  in 
modern  times,  they  are  entirely  adequate  to  determine  His 
manner  of  life,  His  character,  and  His  teaching,  even  if  many 
points  on  which  greater  light  could  be  desired  are  left  in  ob 
scurity.  He  stands  forth  clearly  in  all  His  essential  qualities. 
He  was  brought  up  in  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  in  the  simple  sur 
roundings  of  a  carpenter's  home.  The  land,  though  despised 
by  the  more  purely  Jewish  inhabitants  of  Judaea  on  account  of 
a  considerable  admixture  of  races,  was  loyal  to  the  Hebrew  re 
ligion  and  traditions,  the  home  of  a  hardy,  self-respecting  pop 
ulation,  and  particularly  pervaded  by  the  Messianic  hope. 
Here  Jesus  grew  to  manhood  through  years  of  unrecorded 
experience,  which,  from  His  later  ministry,  must  have  been 
also  of  profound  spiritual  insight  and  "favor  with  God  and 
man." 

From  this  quiet  life  He  was  drawn  by  the  preaching  of  John 
the  Baptist.  To  him  He  went,  and  by  him  was  baptized  in 

1  Luke  32-14 ;  Matt.  31-12.  2  Acts,  191-4. 


THE  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  19 

the  Jordan.  In  connection  with  this  baptism  there  came  to 
Him  the  conviction  that  He  was  the  Messiah  of  Jewish  hope, 
the  chosen  of  God,  the  appointed  founder  of  the  divine  king 
dom.  A  struggle  with  temptations  to  interpret  this  Messiah- 
ship  in  terms  of  ordinary  Jewish  expectation,  resulted  in  His 
rejection  of  all  political  or  self-seeking  methods  of  its  realiza 
tion  as  unworthy,  and  the  unshakable  conviction  that  His 
Messianic  leadership  was  purely  spiritual,  and  the  kingdom 
solely  a  kingdom  of  God,  He  began  at  once  to  preach  the 
kingdom  and  to  heal  the  afflicted  in  Galilee,  and  soon  had  great 
popular  following.  He  gathered  about  Him  a  company  of  in 
timate  associates — the  Apostles — and  a  larger  group  of  less 
closely  attached  disciples.  How  long  His  ministry  continued 
is  uncertain,  from  one  to  three  years  will  cover  its  possible 
duration.  Opposition  was  aroused  as  the  spiritual  nature  of 
His  message  became  evident  and  His  hostility  to  the  current 
Pharisaism  was  recognized.  Many  of  His  first  followers  fell 
away.  He  journeyed  to  the  northward  toward  Tyre  and  Sidon, 
and  then  to  the  ivgion  of  Csesarea  Philippi,  where  He  drew  forth 
a  recognition  of  His  Messianic  mission  from  His  disciples. 
He  felt,  however,  that  at  whatever  peril  He  must  bear  wit 
ness  in  Jerusalem,  and  thither  He  went  with  heroic  courage, 
in  the  face  of  growing  hostility,  there  to  be  seized  and  crucified, 
certainly  under  Pontius  Pilate  (A.  D.  26-36)  and  probably  in 
the  year  30.  His  disciples  were  scattered,  but  speedily  gathered 
once  more,  with  renewed  courage,  in  the  glad  conviction  that 
He  still  lived,  having  risen  from  the  dead.  Such,  in  barest 
outline,  is  the  story  of  the  most  influential  life  ever  lived. 
The  tremendous  impress  of  His  personality  was  everywhere 
apparent. 

In  treating,  however  briefly,  of  the  teaching  and  work  of 
Jesus,  it  must  be  recognized,  as  Harnj£k  has  pointed  out,  that 
we  have  from  the  first  a  twofold  Gospel — a  Gospel  of  Jesus — 
His  teachings ;  and  a  Gospel  about  Jesus — the  impression  that 
He  made  upon  His  disciples  as  to  what  He  was.  He  began 
with  what  were  the  best  possessions  of  contemporary  Judaism, 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  Messianic  hope.  These  had  been 
the  centre  of  John's  message.  The  mysterious  thing  in  Jesus* 
experience  is  that  He  felt  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  and,  as 
far  as  can  be  judged,  this  conviction  was  no  matter  of  deduc 
tion.  It  was  a  clear  consciousness.  He  knew  Himself  to  be 


20  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

the  Messianic  founder  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Yet  that  king 
dom  was  not  earthly,  Maccabean.  It  was  always  spiritual. 
But  His  conception  of  it  enlarged.  At  first  He  seems  to  have 
regarded  it  as  for  Jews  only.1  As  He  went  on,  His  conception 
of  its  inclusiveness  grew,  and  He  taught  not  merely  that  many 
"shall  come  from  the  east  and  west  and  from  the  north  and 
south,"2  but  that  the  kingdom  itself  will  be  taken  from  the 
unbelieving  Jews.3  Jesus  held  Himself  in  a  peculiar  degree 
the  friend  of  the  sons  and  daughters  of  the  kingdom  whom 
Pharisaism  had  disinherited,  the  outcasts,  publicans,  harlots, 
and  the  poor.  Their  repentance  was  of  value  in  the  sight  of 
God. 

The  kingdom  of  God,  in  Jesus'  teaching,  involves  the  recog 
nition  -of  God's  sovereignty  and  fatherhood.  We  are  His  chil 
dren.  Hence  we  should  love  Him  and  our  neighbors.4  All 
whom  we  can  help  are  our  neighbors.5  We  do  not  so  love 
now.  Hence  we  need  to  repent  with  sorrow  for  sin,  and  turn 
to  God ;  and  this  attitude  of  sorrow  and  trust  (repentance  and 
faith)  is  followed  by  the  divine  forgiveness.6  The  ethical 
standard  of  the  kingdom  is  the  highest  conceivable.  "Be  ye 
therefore  perfect,  even  as  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven 
is  perfect."7  It  involves  the  utmost  strenuousness  toward 
self,8  and  unlimited  forgiveness  toward  others.9  Forgiveness 
of  others  is  a  necessary  condition  of  God's  forgiving  us.10  There 
are  two  ways  in  life:  one  broad  and  easy,  the  other  narrow  and 
hard.  A  blessed  future  or  destruction  are  the  ends.11  Jesus 
was,  like  His  age,  strongly  eschatological  in  His  outlook. 
Though  He  felt  that  the  kingdom  is  begun  now,12  it  is  to  be 
much  more  powerfully  manifested  in  the  near  future.  The 
end  of  the  present  age  seemed  not  far  off.13 

Most  of  these  views  and  sayings  can  doubtless  be  paralleled 
in  the  religious  thought  of  the  age;  but  the  total  effect  was 
revolutionary.  "He  taught  them  as  one  that  had  authority, 
and  not  as  the  scribes."14  He  could  say  that  the  least  of  His 
disciples  is  greater  than  John  the  Baptist;15  and  that  heaven 

1  Mark  727;  Matt.  105-7,  1524.     2  Luke  1329.  3  Mark  121-12. 

4  Mark  1228-34.  B  Luke  1025-37.  6  Luke  1511-32. 

7  Matt.  548.  8  Mark  943'60.  9  Matt.  IS21-  22. 

10  Mark  II25-  26.  "  Matt.  713- 14.  12  Mark  41-32;  Luke  1721. 

13  Matt.  1023,  1928,  2434 ;  Mark  1330. 

14  Mark  I22.  16  Matt.  11". 


THE  MYSTERY  OF  HIS  PERSON  21 

and  earth  should  pass  away  before  His  words.1  He  called  the 
heavy-laden  to  Him  and  offered  them  rest.2  He  promised  to 
those  who  confessed  Him  before  men  that  He  would  confess 
them  before  His  Father.3  He  declared  that  none  knew  the 
Father  but  a  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  should  reveal  the 
Father.4  He  proclaimed  Himself  lord  of  the  Sabbath,5  than 
which,  in  popular  estimate,  there  was  no  more  sacred  part  of 
the  God-given  Jewish  law.  He  affirmed  that  He  had  power 
to  pronounce  forgiveness  of  sins.6  On  the  other  hand,  He 
felt  His  own  humanity  and  its  limitations  no  less  clearly.  He 
prayed,  and  taught  His  disciples  to  pray.  He  declared  that 
He  did  not  know  the  day  or  the  hour  of  ending  of  the  present 
world-age ;  that  was  known  to  the  Father  alone.7  It  was  not 
His  to  determine  who  should  sit  on  His  right  hand  arid  His 
left  in  His  exaltation.8  He  prayed  that  the  Father's  will,  not 
His  own,  be  done.9  He  cried  in  the  agony  of  the  cross:  "My 
God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me?"10  The  mystery  of  His 
person  is  in  these  utterances.  Its  divinity  is  no  less  evident 
than  its  humanity.  The  how  is  beyond  our  experience,  and 
therefore  beyond  our  powers  of  comprehension ;  but  the  church 
has  always  busied  itself  with  the  problem,  and  has  too  often 
practically  emphasized  one  side  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other. 

Jesus  substituted  for  the  external,  work  righteous,  cere 
monial  religion  of  contemporary  Judaism,  the  thought  of  piety 
as  consisting  in  love  to  God  and  to  one's  neighbor — to  a  God 
who  is  a  Father  and  a  neighbor  who  is  a  brother — manifested 
primarily  in  an  attitude  of  the  heart  and  inward  life,  the  fruit 
of  which  is  external  acts.  The  motive  power  of  that  life  is 
personal  allegiance  to  Himself  as  the  revelation  of  the  Father, 
the  type  of  redeemed  humanity,  the  Elder  Brother,  and  the 
King  of  the  kingdom-  of  God. 

What  Jesus  taught  and  was  gained  immense  significance 
from  the  conviction  of  His  disciples  that  His  death  was  not  the 
end — from  the  resurrection  faith.  The  how  of  this  conviction 
is  one  of  the  most  puzzling  of  historical  problems.  The  fact 
of  this  conviction  is  unquestionable.  It  seems  to  have  come 
first  to  Peter,11  who  was  in  that  sense  at  least  the  " rock"  Apostle 

1  Mark  1331.  2  Matt.  II28.  8  Matt.  1032. 

4  Matt.  II27',  Luke  1022.  6  Mark  223-28.  •  M ark  21-11. 

7  Mark  1332.  8  Mark  1040.  9  Mark  1436. 

16  Mark  1534.  »1  Cor.  155. 


22  RESURRECTION  AND  PENTECOST 

on  whom  the  church  was  founded.  All  the  early  disciples 
shared  it.  It  was  the  turning-point  in  the  conversion  of  Paul. 
It  gave  courage  to  the  scattered  disciples,  brought  them  to 
gether  again,  and  made  them  witnesses.  Henceforth  they  had 
a  risen  Lord,  in  the  exaltation  of  glory,  yet  ever  interested  in 
them.  The  Messiah  of  Jewish  hope,  in  a  profounder  spiritual 
reality  than  Judaism  had  ever  imagined  Him,  had  really  lived, 
died,  and  risen  again  for  their  salvation. 

These  convictions  were  deepened  by  the  experiences  of  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  The  exact  nature  of  the  pentecostal  mani 
festation  is,  perhaps,  impossible  to  recover.  Certainly  the  con 
ception  of  a  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  in  many  foreign  lan 
guages  is  inconsistent  with  what  we  know  of  speaking  with 
tongues  elsewhere1  and  with  the  criticism  reported  by  the 
author  of  Acts  that  they  were  "full  of  new  wine/' 2  which 
Peter  deemed  worthy  of  a  reply.  But  the  point  of  significance 
is  that  these  spiritual  manifestations  appeared  the  visible  and 
audible  evidence  of  the  gift  and  power  of  Christ.3  To  these 
first  Christians  it  was  the  triumphant  inauguration  of  a  rela 
tion  to  the  living  Lord,  confidence  in  which  controlled  much 
of  the  thinking  of  the  Apostolic  Church.  If  the  disciple  visibly 
acknowledged  his  allegiance  by  faith,  repentance,  and  baptism, 
the  exalted  Christ,  it  was  believed,  in  turn  no  less  evidently 
acknowledged  the  disciple  by  His  gift  of  the  Spirit.  Pentecost 
was  indeed  a  day  of  the  Lord ;  and  though  hardly  to  be  called 
the  birthday  of  the  church,  for  that  had  its  beginnings  in  Jesus' 
association  with  the  disciples,  it  marked  an  epoch  in  the  proc 
lamation  of  the  Gospel,  in  the  disciples'  conviction  of  Christ's 
presence,  and  in  the  increase  of  adherents  to  the  new  faith. 

SECTION   IV.      THE   PALESTINIAN  CHRISTIAN   COMMUNITIES 

The  Christian  community  in  Jerusalem  seems  to  have  grown 
rapidly.  It  speedily  included  Jews  who  had  lived  in  the  dis 
persion  as  well  as  natives  of  Galilee  and  Judaea,  and  even  some 
of  the  Hebrew  priests.  By  the  Christian  body  the  name 
"church"  was  very  early  adopted.  The  designation  comes 
from  the  Septuagint  translation  of  the  Old  Testament,  where 
it  had  been  employed  to  indicate  the  whole  people  of  Israel  as 
a  divinely  called  congregation.  As  such  it  was  a  fitting  title 

1  See  1  Cor.  H2-19.  2  Acts  213.  3  Acts  233. 


PRIMITIVE  WORSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION    23 

for  the  true  Israel,  the  real  people  of  God,  and  such  the  early 
Christians  felt  themselves  to  he.  The  early  Jerusalem  com 
pany  were  faithful  in  attendance  at  the  temple,  and  in  obedi 
ence  to  the  Jewish  law,  but,  in  addition,  they  had  their  own 
special  services  among  themselves,  with  prayer,  mutual  ex 
hortation,  and  "breaking  of  bread"  daily  in  private  houses.1 
This  "breakingof  bread"  served  a  twofold  purpose.  It  was  a 
bond  of  fellowship  and  a  means  of  support  for  the  needy. 
The  expectation  of  the  speedy  coming  of  the  Lord  made  the 
company  at  Jerusalem  a  waiting  congregation,  in  which  the 
support  of  the  less  well-to-do  was  provided  by  the  gifts  of  the 
better  able,  so  that  they  "had  all  things  common."2  The  act 
was  much  more  than  that,  however.  It  was  a  continuation 
and  a  reminder  of  the  Lord's  Last  Supper  \vith  His  disciples 
before  His  crucifixion.  It  had,  therefore,  from  the  first,  a 
sacramental  significance. 

Organization  was  very  simple.  The  leadership  of  the  Jeru 
salem  congregation  was  at  first  that  of  Peter,  and  in  a  lesser 
degree  of  John.  With  them  the  whole  apostolic  company  was 
associated  in  prominence,  though  whether  they  constituted  so 
fully  a  governing  board  as  tradition  affirmed  by  the  time  that 
Acts  was  written  may  be  doubted.  Questions  arising  from  the 
distribution  of  aid  to  the  needy  resulted  in  the  appointment 
of  a  committee  of  seven,3  but  whether  this  action  was  the 
origin  of  the  diaconate  or  a  temporary  device  to  meet  a  particu 
lar  situation  is  uncertain.  The  utmost  that  can  be  said  is  that 
the  duties  thus  intrusted  resembled  those  later  discharged 
by  deacons  in  the  Gentile  churches.  At  an  early  though 
somewhat  later  period  "elders"  (Trpeafivi-epoi)  are  mentioned,4 
though  whether  these  were  simply  the  older  members  of  the 
church,5  or  were  officers6  not  improbably  patterned  after  those 
of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  is  impossible  to  determine. 

The  Jerusalem  congregation  was  filled  with  the  Messianic 
hope,  it  would  seem  at  first  in  a  cruder  and  less  spiritual  form 
than  Jesus  had  taught.7  It  was  devoted  in  its  loyalty  to  the 
Christ,  who  would  soon  return,  but  "whom  the  heaven  must 
receive  until  the  times  of  restoration  of  all  things."  8  Salva 
tion  it  viewed  as  to  be  obtained  by  repentance,  which  included 

1  Acts  248.  2  Acts  244.  8  Acts  61-8. 

4  Acts  II30.  «  As  Acts  1523  might  imply.  6  Acts  1423. 

7  See  Acts  I6.  8  Acts  3". 


24         THE  CONGREGATION  IN  JERUSALEM 

sorrow  for  the  national  sin  of  rejecting  Jesus  as  the  Messiah 
as  well  as  for  personal  sins.  This  repentance  and  acknowledg 
ment  of  loyalty  was  followed  by  baptism  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
as  a  sign  of  cleansing  and  token  of  new  relationship,  and  was 
sealed  with  the  divine  approval  by  the  bestowment  of  spiritual 
gifts.1  This  preaching  of  Jesus  as  the  true  Messiah,  and  fear 
of  a  consequent  disregard  of  the  historic  ritual,  led  to  an  at 
tack  by  Pharisaic  Hellenist  Jews,  which  resulted  in  the  death 
of  the  first  Christian  martyr,  Stephen,  by  stoning  at  the  hands 
of  a  mob.  The  immediate  consequence  was  a  partial  scatter 
ing  of  the  Jerusalem  congregation,  so  that  the  seeds  of  Chris 
tianity  were  sown  throughout  Judsea,  in  Samaria,  and  even 
in  as  remote  regions  as  Csesarea,  Damascus,  Antioch,  and  the 
island  of  Cyprus.  Of  the  original  Apostles  the  only  one  who 
is  certainly  known  to  have  exercised  a  considerable  missionary 
activity  was  Peter,  though  tradition  ascribes  such  labors  to 
them  all.  John  may  have  engaged,  also,  in  such  endeavor, 
though  the  later  history  of  this  Apostle  is  much  in  dispute. 

The  comparative  peace  which  followed  the  martyrdom  of 
Stephen  was  broken  for  the  Jerusalem  church  by  a  much  more 
severe  persecution  about  A.  D.  44,  instigated  by  Herod  Agrippa 
I,  who  from  41  to  his  death  in  44,  was  vassal-king  over  the 
former  territories  of  Herod  the  Great.  Peter  was  imprisoned, 
but  escaped  death,  and  the  Apostle  James  was  beheaded.  In 
connection  with  the  scattering  consequent  upon  this  persecu 
tion  is  probably  to  be  found  whatever  truth  underlies  the  tradi 
tion  that  the  Apostles  left  Jerusalem  twelve  years  after  the 
crucifixion.  At  all  events,  Peter  seems  to  have  been  only  oc 
casionally  there  henceforth;  and  the  leadership  of  the  Jerusalem 
church  fell  to  James,  "the  Lord's  brother,"  who  even  earlier 
had  become  prominent  in  its  affairs.2  This  position,  which  he 
held  till  his  martyr's  death  about  63,  has  often  been  called  a 
"bishopric,"  and  undoubtedly  it  corresponded  in  many  ways 
to  the  monarchical  bishopric  in  the  Gentile  churches.  There 
is  no  evidence,  however,  of  the  application  to  James  of  the 
term  "bishop"  in  his  lifetime.  When  the  successions  of  re 
ligious  leadership  among  Semitic  peoples  are  remembered, 
especially  the  importance  attached  to  relationship  to  the 
founder,  it  seems  much  more  likely  that  there  was  here  a  rudi 
mentary  caliphate.  This  interpretation  is  rendered  the  more 

1  Acts  2".  38.  2  Gal.  I19,  29;  Acts  2118. 


TENDENCIES  IN  PALESTINIAN  CHRISTIANITY    25 

probable  because  James's  successor  in  the  leadership  of  the 
Jerusalem  church,  though  not  chosen  till  after  the  conquest  of 
the  city  by  Titus  in  70,  was  Simeon,  esteemed  Jesus'  kinsman. 
Under  the  leadership  of  James  the  church  in  Jerusalem  em 
braced  two  parties,  both  in  agreement  that  the  ancient  law  of 
Israel  was  binding  on  Christians  of  Jewish  race,  but  differing 
as  to  whether  it  was  similarly  regulative  for  Christian  converts 
from  heathenism.  One  wing  held  it  to  be  binding  on  all ;  the 
other,  of  which  James  was  a  representative,  was  willing  to 
allow  freedom  from  the  law  to  Gentile  Christians,  though  it 
viewed  with  disfavor  such  a  mingling  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  at 
a  common  table  as  Peter  was  disposed,  for  a  time  at  least,  to 
welcome.1  The  catastrophe  which  ended  the  Jewish  rebellion 
in  the  year  70  was  fateful,  however,  to  all  the  Christian  com 
munities  in  Palestine,  even  though  that  of  Jerusalem  escaped 
the  perils  of  the  'siege  by  flight.  The  yet  greater  overthrow  of 
Jewish  hopes  under  Hadrian,  in  the  war  of  132  to  135,  left 
Palestinian  Christianity  a  feeble  remnant.  Even  before  the 
first  capture  of  the  city,  more  influential  foci  of  Christian  in 
fluence  were  to  be  found  in  other  portions  of  the  empire.  The 
Jerusalem  church  and  its  associated  Palestinian  communities 
were  important  as  the  fountain  from  which  Christianity  first 
flowed  forth,  and  as  securing  the  preservation  of  many  memorials 
of  Jesus'  life  and  words  that  would  otherwise  have  been  lost, 
rather  than  as  influencing,  by  direct  and  permanent  leader 
ship,  the  development  of  Christianity  as  a  whole. 

SECTION   V.      PAUL   AND    GENTILE   CHRISTIANITY 

As  has  already  been  mentioned,  the  persecution  which 
brought  about  Stephen's  martyrdom  resulted  in  the  planting 
of  Christianity  beyond  the  borders  of  Palestine.  Missionaries, 
whose  names  have  perished,  preached  Christ  to  fellow  Jews. 
In  Antioch  a  further  extension  of  this  propaganda  took  place. 
Antioch,  the  capital  of  Syria,  was  a  city  of  the  first  rank,  a 
remarkably  cosmopolitan  meeting-place  of  Greeks,  Syrians, 
and  Jews.  There  the  new  faith  was  preached  to  Greeks.  The 
effect  of  this  preaching  was  the  spread  of  the  Gospel  among 
those  of  Gentile  antecedents.  By  the  populace  they  were 
nicknamed  " Christians" — a  title  little  used  by  the  followers 

1  Gal.  212-18. 


26       SHOULD  CHRISTIANITY  BE  UNIVERSAL 

of  Jesus  themselves  till  well  into  the  second  century,  though 
earlier  prevalent  among  the  heathen.  Nor  was  Antioch  the 
farthest  goal  of  Christian  effort.  By  51  or  52,  under  Claudius, 
tumults  among  the  Jews  consequent  upon  Christian  preaching 
by  unknown  missionaries  attracted  governmental  attention 
in  Rome  itself.  At  this  early  period,  however,  Antioch  was 
the  centre  of  development.  The  effect  of  this  conversion  of 
those  whose  antecedents  had  been  heathen  was  inevitably  to 
raise  the  question  of  the  relation  of  these  disciples  to  the  Jew 
ish  law.  Should  that  rule  be  imposed  upon  Gentiles,  Christi 
anity  would  be  but  a  Jewish  sect ;  should  Gentiles  be  free  from 
it  Christianity  could  become  a  universal  religion,  but  at  the 
cost  of  much  Jewish  sympathy.  That  this  inevitable  conflict 
was  decided  in  favor  of  the  larger  doctrine  was  primarily  the 
work  of  the  Apostle  Paul. 

V>  Paul,  whose  Hebrew  name,  Saul,  was  reminiscent  of  the  hero 
"of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  of  which  he  was  a  member,  was  born 
in  the  Cilician  city  of  Tarsus,  of  Pharisaic  parentage,  but  of 
a  father  possessed  of  Roman  citizenship.  Tarsus  was  eminent 
in  the  educational  world,  and  at  the  time  of  Paul's  birth  was 
a  seat  of  Stoic  teaching.  Brought  up  in  a  strict  Jewish  home, 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  Paul  ever  received  a  formal 
Hellenic  education.  He  was  never  a  Hellenizer  in  the  sense 
of  Philo  of  Alexandria.  A  wide-awake  youth  in  such  a  city 
could  not  fail,  however,  to  receive  many  Hellenic  ideas,  and  to 
become  familiar,  in  a  measure  at  least,  with  the  political  and 
religious  atmosphere  of  the  larger  world  outside  his  orthodox 
Jewish  home.  Still,  it  was  in  the  rabbinical  tradition  that  he 
grew  up,  and  it  was  as  a  future  scribe  that  he  went,  at  an  age 
now  unknown,  to  study  under  the  famous  Gamaliel  the  elder, 
in  Jerusalem.  How  much,  if  anything,  he  knew  of  the  ministry 
of  Jesus  other  than  by  common  report,  it  is  impossible  to  de 
termine.  His  devotion  to  the  Pharisaic  conception  of  a  nation 
made  holy  by  careful  observance  of  the  Jewish  law  was  extreme, 
and  his  own  conduct,  as  tried  by  that  standard,  was  "blame 
less."  Always  a  man  of  the  keenest  spiritual  insight,  however, 
he  came,  even  while  a  Pharisee,  to  feel  deep  inward  dissatis 
faction  with  his  own  attainments  in  character.  The  law  did 
not  give  a  real  inward  righteousness.  Such  was  his  state  of 
mind  when  brought  into  contact  with  Christianity.  If  Jesus 
was  no  true  Messiah,  He  had  justly  suffered,  and  His  disciples 


PAUL'S  RELIGIOUS  EXPERIENCE  27 

were  justly  objects  of  persecution.  Could  he  be  convinced 
that  Jesus  was  the  chosen  of  God,  then  He  must  be  to  him  the 
first  object  of  allegiance,  and  the  law  for  opposition  to  the  Phari 
saic  interpretation  of  which  He  died — and  Paul  recognized  no 
other  interpretation — must  itself  be  abrogated  by  divine  in 
tervention,  f 

Though  the  dates  of  Paul's  history  are  conjectural,  it  may 
have  been  about  the  year  35  that  the  great  change  came — 
journeying  to  Damascus  on  an  errand  of  persecution  he  beheld 
in  vision  the  exalted  Jesus,  who  called  him  to  personal  service. 
What  may  have  been  the  nature  of  that  experience  can  at  best 
be  merely  conjectured ;  but  of  its  reality  to  Paul  and  of  its  trans 
forming  power  there  can  be  no  question.  Henceforth  he  was 
convinced  not  only  that  Jesus  was  all  that  Christianity  claimed 
Him  to  be,  but  he  felt  a  personal  devotion  to  his  Master  that 
involved  nothing  less  than  union  of  spirit.  He  could  say :  "  I 
live,  and  yet  no  longer  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me."1  The  old 
legalism  dropped  away,  and  with  it  the  value  of  the  law. 
Paul  henceforth  the  new  life  was  one  of  a  new  friendship. 
Christ  had  become  his  closest  friend.  He  now  viewed  man, 
God,  sin,  and  the  world  as  through  his  friend's  eyes.  To  do 
his  friend's  will  was  his  highest  desire.  All  that  his  friend  had 
won  was  his.  "If  any  man  is  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature: 
the  old  things  are  passed  away ;  behold  they  are  become  new." 

With  an  ardent  nature  such  as  Paul's  this  transformation 
manifested  itself  at  once  in  action.  Of  the  story  of  the  next 
few  years  little  is  known.  He  went  at  first  into  Arabia — a 
region  in  the  designation  of  that  age  not  necessarily  far  south 
of  Damascus.  He  preached  in  that  city.  Three  years  after 
his  conversion  he  made  a  flying  visit  to  Jerusalem,  where  he 
sojourned  with  Peter  and  met  James,  "the  Lord's  brother." 
He  worked  in  Syria  and  Cilicia  for  years,  in  danger,  suffering, 
and  bodily  weakness.3  Of  the  circumstances  of  this  ministry 
little  is  known.  He  can  hardly  have  failed  to  preach  to  Gen 
tiles  ;  and,  with  the  rise  to  importance  of  a  mixed  congregation 
at  Antioch,  he  was  naturally  sought  by  Barnabas  as  one  of 
judgment  in  the  questions  involved.  Barnabas,  who  had  been 
sent  from  Jerusalem,  now  brought  Paul  from  Tarsus  to  Antioch, 
probably  in  the  year  46  or  47.  Antioch  had  become  a  great 

1  Gal.  220.  2  2  Cor.  517. 

3  Some  few  incidents  are  enumerated  in  2  Cor.  11  and  12. 


28  PAUL  THE  MISSIONARY 

focal  point  of  Christian  activity;  and  from  it  in  obedience,  as 
the  Antiochian  congregation  believed,  to  divine  guidance, 
Paul  and  Barnabas  set  forth  for  a  missionary  journey  that 
took  them  to  Cyprus  and  thence  to  Perga,  Antioch  of  Pisidia, 
Iconium,  Lystra,  and  Derbe — the  so-called  first  missionary 
journey  described  in  Acts  13  and  14.  Apparently  the  most 
fruitful  evangelistic  endeavor  thus  far  in  the  history  of  the 
church,  it  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  a  group  of  congre 
gations  in  southern  Asia  Minor,  which  Paul  afterward  addressed 
as  those  of  Galatia,  though  many  scholars  would  find  the 
Galatian  churches  in  more  northern  and  central  regions  of 
Asia  Minor,  to  which  no  visit  of  Paul  is  recorded. 

The  growth  of  the  church  in  Antioch  and  the  planting  of 
mixed  churches  in  Cyprus  and  Galatia  now  raised  the  question 
of  Gentile  relation  to  the  law  on  a  great  scale.  The  congre 
gation  in  Antioch  was  turmoiled  by  visitors  from  Jerusalem 
who  asserted :  "  Except  ye  be  circumcised  after  the  custom  of 
Moses  ye  cannot  be  saved."1  Paul  determined  to  make  a  test 
case.  Taking  with  him  Titus,  an  uncircumcised  Gentile  con 
vert,  as  a  concrete  example  of  non-legalistic  Christianity,  he 
went  with  Barnabas  to  Jerusalem  and  met  the  leaders  there 
privately.  The  result  reached  with  James,  Peter,  and  John 
was  a  cordial  recognition  of  the  genuineness  of  Paul's  work 
among  the  Gentiles,  and  an  agreement  that  the  field  should  be 
divided,  the  Jerusalem  leaders  to  continue  the  mission  to  Jews, 
of  course  with  maintenance  of  the  law,  wThile  Paul  and  Barna 
bas  should  go  with  their  free  message  to  the  Gentiles.2  It  was  a 
decision  honorable  to  both  sides;  but  it  was  impossible  of  full 
execution.  What  were  to  be  the  relations  in  a  mixed  church  ? 
Could  law-keeping  Jews  and  law-free  Gentiles  eat  together? 
That  further  question  was  soon  raised  in  connection  with  a 
visit  of  Peter  to  Antioch.3  It  led  to  a  public  discussion  in  the 
Jerusalem  congregation,  probably  in  the  year  49 — the  so-called 
Council  of  Jerusalem — and  the  formulation  of  certain  rules 
governing  mixed  eating.4  To  Paul,  anything  but  the  freest 
equality  of  Jew  and  Gentile  seemed  impossible.  To  Peter  and 
Barnabas  the  question  of  terms  of  common  eating  seemed  of 
prime  importance.  Paul  withstood  them  both.  He  must 
fight  the  battle  largely  alone,  for  Antioch  seems  to  have  held 
with  Jerusalem  in  this  matter  of  intercourse  at  table. 

1  Acts  151.  z  Gal  21-10.  3  Gal.  211-16.  4  Acts  158-29. 


Longitude  East 


LANDS  ABOUT  THE 

EASTERN  MEDITERRANEAN 

IN  THE  FIRST  CENTURY 


.Roman  '<*>. 
English 


Scales 
9 


L       I       B       Y       A 


00  50  O 


from 


Greenwich 


PAUL  THE  MISSIONARY  29 

Then  followed  the  brief  years  of  Paul's  greatest  missionary 
activity,  and  the  period  to  which  we  owe  all  his  epistles. 
Taking  with  him  a  Jerusalem  Christian,  of  Roman  citizenship, 
Silas  by  name,  he  separated  from  Barnabas  by  reason  of  dis 
agreement  regarding  eating,  and  also  by  dissension  regarding 
the  conduct  of  'Barnabas's  cousin,  Mark.1  A  journey  through 
the  region  of  Galatia  brought  him  Timothy  as  an  assistant. 
Unable  to  labor  in  western  Asia  Minor,  Paul  and  his  companions 
now  entered  Macedonia,  founding  churches  in  Philippi  and 
Thessalonica,  being  coldly  received  in  Athens,  and  spending 
eighteen  months  in  successful  work  in  Corinth  (probably  51- 
53).  Meanwhile  the  Judaizers  had  been  undermining  his 
apostolic  authority  in  Galatia,  and  from  Corinth  he  wrote  to 
these  churches  his  great  epistle  vindicating  not  merely  his 
own  ministry,  but  the  freedom  of  Christianity  from  all  obliga 
tion  to  the  Jewish  law.  It  was  the  charter  of  a  universal 
Christianity.  To  the  Thessalonians  he  also  wrote,  meeting 
their  peculiar  difficulties  regarding  persecution  and  the  ex 
pected  coming  of  Christ. 

Taking  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  who  had  become  his  fellow  la 
borers  in  Corinth,  with  him  to  Ephesus,  Paul  left  them  there  and 
made  a  hurried  visit  to  Jerusalem  and  Antioch.  On  his  return 
to  Ephesus,  where  Christianity  had  already  been  planted,  he 
began  a  ministry  there  of  three  years'  duration  (53?-56?). 
Largely  successful,  it  was  also  full  of  opposition  and  of  such  peril 
that  Paul  "despaired  even  of  life"2  and  ultimately  had  to  flee. 
The  Apostles'  burdens  were  but  increased  during  this  stay  at 
Ephesus  by  moral  delinquencies,  party  strife,  and  consequent 
rejection  of  his  authority  in  Corinth.  These  led  not  merely 
to  his  significant  letters  to  the  Corinthiam,  but  on  departure 
from  Ephesus,  to  a  stay  of  three  months  in  Corinth  itself.  His 
authority  was  restored.  In  this  Corinthian  sojourn  he  wrote 
the  greatest  of  his  epistles,  that  to  the  Romans. 

Meanwhile  Paul  had  never  ceased  to  hope  that  the  breach 
between  him  and  his  Gentile  Christians  and  the  rank  and  file 
of  the  Jerusalem  church  could  be  healed.  As  a  thank-oft'ering 
for  what  the  Gentiles  owed  to  the  parent  community,  he  had 
been  collecting  a  contribution  from  his  Gentile  converts. 
This,  in  spite  of  obvious  peril,  he  determined  to  take  to  Jeru 
salem.  Of  the  reception  of  this  gift  and  of  the  course  of  Paul's 

1  Acts  1536-40.  2  2  Cor.  I8. 


30          PAUL'S  IMPRISONMENT  AND  DEATH 

negotiations  nothing  is  known ;  but  the  Apostle  himself  was 
speedily  arrested  in  Jerusalem  and  sent  a  prisoner  of  the 
Roman  Government  to  Csesarea,  doubtless  as  an  inciter  of  riot 
ing.  Two  years'  imprisonment  (57?-59?)  led  to  no  decisive 
result,  since  Paul  exercised  his  right  of  appeal  to  the  imperial 
tribunal  at  Rome,  and  were  followed  by  his  adventurous  jour 
ney  to  the  capital  as  a  prisoner.  At  Rome  he  lived  in  custody, 
part  of  the  time  at  least  in  his  own  hired  lodging,  for  two 
years  (60?-62?).  Here  he  wrote  to  his  beloved  churches  our 
Ephesians,  Colossians,  Philippians,  and  briefer  letters  to 
Philemon  and  to  Timothy  (the  second  epistle).  Whether  he  was 
released  from  imprisonment  and  made  further  journeys  is  a 
problem  which  still  divides  the  opinion  of  scholars,  but  the 
weight  of  such  slight  evidence  as  there  is  appears  to  be  against 
it.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  tradition  that  he  was 
beheaded  on  the  Ostian  way  outside  of  Rome ;  but  the  year  is 
uncertain.  Tradition  places  his  martyrdom  in  connection 
with  the  great  Neronian  persecution  of  64.  It  was  not  con 
joined  in  place  with  that  savage  attack,  and  may  well  have 
occurred  a  little  earlier  without  being  dissociated  in  later  view 
from  that  event. 

Paul's  heroic  battle  for  a  universal,  non-legalistic  Christi 
anity  has  been  sufficiently  indicated.  His  Christology  will  be 
considered  in  another  connection.1  Was  he  the  founder  or 
the  remaker  of  Christian  theology?  He  would  himself  ear 
nestly  have  repudiated  these  imputations.  Yet  an  interpreta 
tion  by  a  trained  mind  was  sure  to  present  the  simple  faith  of 
primitive  Christianity  in  somewhat  altered  form.  Though 
Paul  wrought  into  Christian  theology  much  that  came  from  his 
own  rabbinic  learning  and  Hellenic  experience,  his  profound 
Christian  feeling  led  him  into  a  deeper  insight  into  the  mind 
of  Christ  than  was  possessed  by  any  other  of  the  early  disciples. 
Paul  the  theologian  is  often  at  variance  with  the  picture  of 
Christ  presented  by  the  Gospels.  Paul  the  Christian  is  pro 
foundly  at  one. 

Paul's  conception  of  freedom  from  the  Jewish  law  was  as  far 
as  possible  from  any  antinomian  undervaluation  of  morality. 
If  the  old  law  had  passed  away,  the  Christian  is  under  "the 
law  of  the  Spirit  of  life."  He  who  has  the  Spirit  dwelling  in 
him,  will  mind  "the  things  of  the  Spirit,"  and  will  "mortify 

1  Section  VII. 


PAUL'S  TEACHING  31 

the  deeds  of  the  body."  1  Paul  evidently  devoted  much  of 
his  training  of  converts  to  moral  instruction.  He  has  a  dis 
tinct  theory  of  the  process  of  salvation.  By  nature  men  are 
children  of  the  first  Adam,  and  share  his  inheritance  of  sin;2 
by  adoption  (a  Roman  idea)  we  are  children  of  God  and  par 
takers  of  the  blessings  of  the  second  Adam,  Christ.3  These 
blessings  have  special  connection  with  Christ's  death  and 
resurrection.  To  Paul,  these  two  events  stand  forth  as  trans 
actions  of  transcendent  significance.  His  attitude  is  well  ex 
pressed  in  Gal.  614:  "Far  be  it  from  me  to  glory  save  in  the 
cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ";  and  the  reason  for  this  glo 
rying  is  twofold,  that  sin  is  thereby  forgiven  and  redemption 
wrought,4  and  that  it  is  the  source  and  motive  of  the  new 
life  of  faith  and  love.5  This  degree  of  emphasis  on  Christ's 
death  was  certainly  new.  To  Paul  the  resurrection  was  no 
less  important.  It  was  the  evidence  that  Jesus  is  the  Son 
of  God,6  the  promise  of  our  own  resurrection,7  and  the  guar 
antee  of  men's  renewed  spiritual  life.8  Hence  Paul  preached 
"Jesus  Christ  and  Him  crucified,"9  or  "Jesus  and  the  resur 
rection."10 

The  power  by  which  men  become  children  of  the  second  Adam 
is  a  free  gift  of  God  through  Christ.  It  is  wholly  undeserved 
grace.11  This  God  sends  to  whom  He  will,  and  withholds  from 
whom  He  will.12  The  condition  of  the  reception  of  grace  on 
man's  part  is  faith.13  "If  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth 
Jesus  as  Lord,  and  shalt  believe  in  thy  heart  that  God  raised 
Him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved."  14  This  doctrine  is 
of  great  importance,  for  it  makes  the  essence  of  the  Christian 
life  not  any  mere  belie*  about  Christ,  nor  any  purely  forensic 
justification,  as  Protestants  have  often  interpreted  Paul,  but 
a  vital,  personal  relationship.  The  designation  of  Jesus  as 
"Lord"  was  one,  as  Bousset  has  pointed  out,13  which  had  its 
rise  in  the  Gentile  churches  of  Syria,  not  impossibly  in  Antioch, 
and  was  the  natural  expression  of  those  *ho  had  long  been 
accustomed  to  employ  it  regarding  :ieir  highest  objects  of 
veneration  for  their  devotion  to  then  new  Master.  To  Paul, 

1  Romans  82-  5-  13.       2  Romans  51J-19.  3  Romans  816-17 ;  1  Cor.  1546. 

*  Romans  324-26.          6  Gel  2».  •  Romans  V. 

7 1  Cor.  151249.  8  Romans  64-11.  '  1  Cor.  2*. 

10  Acts  1718.  "  Romans  3M. 

13  Romans  326-28.  14  Romans  10°.  »  Kyrioa  Christos,  Gottingen,  1913. 


32  PAUL'S  TEACHING 

it  is  an  epitome  of  his  faith.  Christ  is  the  "Lord/'  himself  the 
"slave."  Nor  is  confidence  in  the  resurrection  less  necessary, 
as  the  crowning  proof  of  Christ's  divine  Sonship.1 

The  Christian  life  is  one  filled  with  the  Spirit.  All  graces 
are  from  Him,  all  gifts  and  guidance.  Man  having  the  Spirit 
is  a  new  creature.  Living  the  life  of  the  Spirit,  he  no  longer 
lives  that  of  the  "flesh."  But  that  all-transforming  and  in 
dwelling  Spirit  is  Christ  Himself.  "The  Lord  is  the  Spirit."2 
If  Christ  thus  stands  in  such  relation  to  the  individual  disciple 
that  union  with  Him  is  necessary  for  all  true  Christian  life, 
He  is  in  no  less  vital  association  with  the  whole  body  of  be 
lievers — the  church.  Paul  uses  the  word  church  in  two  senses, 
as  designating  the  local  congregation,  Philippi,  Corinth,  Rome, 
"the  church  that  is  in  their  house,"  and  as  indicating  the  whole 
body  of  believers,  the  true  Israel.  In  the  latter  sense  it  is  the 
body  of  Christ,  of  which  each  local  congregation  is  a  part.3 
From  Christ  come  all  officers  and  helpers,  all  spiritual  gifts.4 
He  is  the  source  of  the  life  of  the  church,  and  these  gifts  are 
evidence  of  His  glorified  lordship.5 

Like  the  early  disciples  generally,  Paul  thought  the.  coming 
of  Christ  and  the  end  of  the  existing  world-order  near;  though 
his  views  underwent  some  modification.  In  his  earlier  epistles 
he  evidently  believed  it  would  happen  in  his  lifetime.6  As 
he  came  toward  the  close  of  his  work  he  felt  it  likely  that  he 
would  die  before  the  Lord's  coming.7  Regarding  the  resur 
rection,  Paul  had  the  greatest  confidence.  Here,  however, 
Hebrew  and  Greek  ideas  were  at  variance.  The  Hebrew  con 
ception  was  a  living  again  of  the  flesh.  The  Greek,  the  im 
mortality  of  the  soul.  Paul  does  not  always  make  his  posi 
tion  clear.  Romans  811  looks  like  the  Hebrew  thought;  but 
the  great  passage  in  1  Cor.  1535'54  points  to  the  Greek.  A 
judgment  is  for  all,8  and  even  among  the  saved  there  will  be 
great  differences.9  Tbe  end  of  all  things  is  the  subjection  of 
all,  even  Christ,  to  God  the  Father.10 

1  Romans  I4.  2  2  Cor.  317. 

*Eph.  I22-  2S;  Col  I18.  *Eph.  411;  1  Cor.  124-11. 

5  Eph.  47-10.  6 1  These.  413-18. 

7  Philippians  123>  24 ;  2  Tim'.  46-8.  8  2  Cor.  510. 

9  1  Cor.  310-15.  10 1  Cor.  1520-28. 


PERSECUTION  AND  GROWTH  33 

SECTION  VI.      THE  CLOSE   OF  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

The  history  and  fate  of  most  of  the  Apostles  is  unknown. 
Though  Peter  cannot  have  been  in  Rome  while  Paul  was 
writing  his  epistles  thence,  and  some  scholars  of  weight  still 
hold  the  evidence  insufficient  to  show  that  he  was  ever  there 
at  all,  the  cumulative  force  of  such  intimations  as  have  sur 
vived  make  the  conclusion  probable  that  he  was  in  Rome  for 
a  shprt  time  at  least,  and  that  his  stay  ended  in  martyrdom 
by  crucifixion  in  the  Neronian  persecutions.1  Such  a  stay, 
and  especially  such  a  death,  would  link  him  permanently  with 
the  Roman  Church.  On  the  other  hand,  a  residence  of  John 
in  Ephesus  is  much  less  assured. 

The  persecution  under  Nero  was  as  ikjce  as  it  was  local. 
A  great  fire  in  Rome,  in  July,  64,  was  followed  by  charges  un 
justly  involving  the  Christians,  probably  at  Nero's  instigation, 
to  turn  popular  rumor  from  himself.  Numbers  suffered  death 
by  horrible  torture  in  the  Vatican  gardens,  where  Nero  made 
their  martyrdom  a  spectacle.2  Thenceforth  he  lived  in  Chris 
tian  tradition  as  a  type  of  antichrist ;  but  the  Roman  Church 
survived  in  strength.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  at  the 
close  of  the  Jewish  rebellion,  in  70,  was  an  event  of  more  per 
manent  significance.  It  almost  ended  the  already  waning  in 
fluence  of  the  Palestinian  congregations  in  the  larger  concerns 
of  the  church.  This  collapse,  and  the  rapid  influx  of  converts 
from  heathen  antecedents  soon  made  Paul's  battle  for  freedom 
from  law  no  longer  a  living  question.  Antioch,  Rome,  and  be 
fore  the  end  of  the  century,  Ephesus,  were  now  the  chief  cen 
tres  of  Christian  development.  The  converts  were  mostly  from 
the  lower  social  classes,3  though  some  of  better  position,  no 
tably  women,  were  to  be  found  among  them.  Such  were  Lydia 
of  Philippi,4  and,  in  much  higher  station,  probably  the  consul, 
Flavius  Clemens,  and  his  wife,  Flavia  Domitilla,  who  suffered 
the  one  death  and  the  other  sentence  of  banishment  in  Rome 
under  Domitian,  in  95.  To  Domitilla,  the  Roman  Church 

1 1  Peter  513 ;  John  2118-  19 ;  1  Clement,  5,  6 ;  Ignatius,  Romans,  43 ;  Ire- 
naeus,  Against  Heresies,  3:1:1;  Caius  of  Rome  in  Eusebius,  Church  His 
tory,  2:25:  5-7. 

2  Tacitus,  Annals  1544;  Ayer,  A  Source-Book  for  Ancient  Church  History, 
p.  6. 

31  Cor.  I26-2*.  *  Acts  1614. 


34  RAPID  CHANGES 

owed  one  of  its  oldest  catacombs.  Of  this  persecution  under 
Domitian  (81-96)  few  details  are  known,  but  it  must  have 
been  of  severity  in  Rome  and  in  Asia  Minor.1 

Yet  though  some  gleanings  can  be  recovered  from  this  period, 
the  forty  years  from  70  to  110  remain  one  of  the  obscurest  por 
tions  of  church  history.  This  is  the  more  to  be  regretted  be 
cause  they  were  an  epoch  of  rapid  change  in  the  church  itself. 
When  the  characteristics  of  the  church  can  once  more  be  clearly 
traced  its  general  conception  of  Christianity  shows  surprisingly 
little  of  the  distinctive  stamp  of  Paul.  Not  only  must  many 
now  unknown  missionaries  have  labored  in  addition  to  the  great 
Apostle,  but  an  inrush  of  ideas  from  other  than  Christian 
sources,  brought  undoubtedly  by  converts  of  heathen  ante 
cedents,  modified  Christian  beliefs  and  practices,  especially 
regarding  the  sacraments,  fastings,  and  the  rise  of  liturgical 
forms.  The  old  conviction  of  the  immediacy  of  the  guidance 
of  the  Spirit  faded,  without  becoming  wholly  extinguished. 
The  constitution  of  the  church  itself  underwent,  in  this  period, 
a  far-reaching  development,  of  which  some  account  will  be 
given  (p.  44). 

An  illustration  of  this  non-Pauline  Christianity,  though 
without  evidence  of  the  infiltration  of  heathen  ideas,  is  to  be 
seen  in  the  Epistle  of  James.  Written  late  in  the  first  cen 
tury  or  early  in  the  second,  it  is  singularly  poor  in  theological 
content.  Its  directions  are  largely  ethical.  Christianity,  in 
the  conception  of  the  writer,  is  a  body  of  right  principles  duly 
practised.  Faith  is  not,  as  with  Paul,  a  new,  vital,  personal 
relationship.  It  is  intellectual  conviction  which  must  be  sup 
plemented  by  appropriate  action.  It  is  a  new  and  simple 
moral  law.2 

To  this  obscure  period  is  due  the  composition  of  the  Gos 
pels.  No  subject  in  church  history  is  more  difficult.  It  would 
appear,  however,  that  at  an  early  period,  not  now  definitely 
to  be  fixed,  a  collection  of  the  sayings  of  Christ  was  in  circula 
tion.  Probably  not  far  from  75-80,  and  according  to  early 
.and  credible  tradition  at  Rome,  Mark's  Gospel  came  into 
existence.  Its  arrangement  was  not  purely  historic,  the  selec 
tion  of  the  materials  being  determined  evidently  by  the  im 
portance  attached  to  the  doctrines  and  ecclesiastical  usages 
which  they  illustrated.  With  large  use  of  the  collection  of 

1 1  Clement,  1;  Rev.  2l°- 13;  713- 14.  2  James  I26;  214-26. 


THE  GOSPELS  35 

sayings  and  of  Mark,  Matthew  and  Luke's  Gospels  came  into 
being,  probably  between  80  and  95 ;  the  former  probably  having 
Palestine  as  its  place  of  writing,  and  the  latter  coming,  there 
is  some  reason  to  believe,  from  Antioch.  The  Johannine  Gos 
pel  is  distinctly  individual,  and  may  not  unfairly  be  ascribed 
to  Ephesus,  and  to  the  period  95-110.  Other  gospels  were  in 
circulation,  of  which  fragments  survive,  but  none  which  com 
pare  in  value  with  the  four  which  the  church  came  to  regard 
as  canoriical.  There  seems  to  have  been  little  of  recollections 
of  Jesus  extant  at  the  close  of  the  first  century  which  was  not 
gathered  into  the  familiar  Gospels.  That  this  was  the  case 
may  be  ascribed  to  the  great  Jewish  war  and  the  decline  of  the 
Palestinian  Hebrew  congregations.  To  the  Gospels  the  church 
owes  the  priceless  heritage  of  its  knowledge  of  the  life  of  its 
Master,  and  a  perpetual  corrective  to  the  one-sidedness  of  an 
interpretation,  which,  like  even  the  great  message  of  Paul, 
pays  little  attention  to  His  earthly  ministry. 

r 
SECTION  VII.      THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  JESUS 

An  inevitable  question  of  the  highest  importance  which  arose 
with  the  proclamation  of  Christianity,  and  must  always  de 
mand  consideration  in  every  age  of  the  church,  is:  What  is 
to  be  thought  of  the  Founder?  The  earliest  Christology,  as 
has  been  pointed  out,  was  Messianic.  Jesus  was  the  Messiah 
of  Jewish  hope,  only  in  a  vastly  more  spiritual  sense  than  that 
hope  commonly  implied.  He  had  gone,  but  only  for  a  brief 
time.1  He  was  now  in  exaltation,  yet  what  must  be  thought 
of  His  earthly  life,  that  had  so  little  of  "  glory "  in  it,  as  men 
use  that  term?  That  life  of  humiliation,  ending  in  a  slave's 
death,  was  but  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  God  had  fore 
shadowed  the  things  that  "His  Christ  should  suffer.2  Early 
Jewish  Christian  thought  recurred  to  the  suffering  servant  of 
Isaiah,  who  was  "wounded  for  our  transgressions."3  Christ 
is  the  "servant"  or  "child,"  (TTCUS  ®eoO),  in  the  early  Petrine 
addresses.4  The  glorification  was  at  the  resurrection.  He  is 
now  "by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted."  5  This  primitive 
conception  of  the  suffering  servant  exalted,  persisted.  It  is 
that,  in  spite  of  a  good  deal  of  Pauline  admixture,  of  the  epistle 

1  Acts  321.  2  Acts  318.  3  Isaiah  536. 

4  Acts  313. 26 ;  427- 30.  6  Acts  232-  33 :  4l°. l2. 


36  THE  EARLIEST  CHRISTOLOGIES 

known  as  1  Peter  318"22.  Clement,  writing  from  Rome  to  the 
Corinthians,  93-97,  also  shares  it.1  It  does  not  necessarily 
imply  pre-existence.  It  does  not  make  clear  the  relationship  of 
Christ  to  God.  It  had  not  thought  that  problem  out. 

An  obvious  distinction  soon  was  apparent.  The  disciples 
had  known  Christ  in  His  life  on  earth.  They  now  knew  Him 
by  His  gifts  in  His  exaltation.  They  had  known  Him  after 
the  flesh;  they  now  knew  Him  after  the  spirit2 — that  is  as 
the  Jesus  of  history  and  the  Christ  of  experience.  To  super 
ficial  consideration,  at  least,  these  two  aspects  were  not  easy  of 
adjustment.  The  Jesus  of  history  lived  in  a  definite  land, 
under  human  conditions  of  space  and  time.  The  Christ  of 
experience  is  Lord  of  all  His  servants,  is  manifested  as  the 
Spirit  at  the  same  moment  in  places  the  most  diverse,  is  om 
nipresent  and  omniscient.  Paul  regards  it  as  a  mark  of  Chris 
tianity  that  men  call  upon  Him  everywhere.3  He  prays  to  Him 
himself.4  In  his  most  solemn  asseveration  that  his  apostle- 
ship  is  not  of  any  human  origin,  Paul  classes  God  and  Christ 
together  as  its  source.5  These  attributes  and  powers  of  the 
Christ  of  experience  are  very  like  divine,  it  is  evident ;  and  they 
inevitably  raised  the  question  of  Christ's  relation  to  the  Father 
as  it  had  not  been  raised  thus  far,  and  in  a  mind  of  far  subtler 
powers  and  greater  training  and  education  than  that  of  any  of 
the  earlier  disciples,  that  of  Paul. 

Paul  knew  Hebrew  theology  well,  with  its  conception  of  the 
divine  "wisdom"  as  present  with  God  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world.6  He  also  knew  something  of  Stoicism,  with  its 
doctrine  of  the  universal,  omnipresent,  fashioning  divine  in 
telligence,  the  Logos,  that  in  many  ways  resembled  the  He 
brew  wisdom.  He  knew  the  Isaian  conception  of  the  suffer 
ing  servant.  To  Paul,  therefore,  the  identification  of  the 
exalted  Christ  with  the  divine  wisdom — Logos — was  not  only 
easy,  but  natural;  and  that  wisdom — Logos — must  be  pre- 
existent  and  always  with  God.  He  is  "the  Spirit  of  God,"7 
the  "wisdom  of  God."8  "In  Him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of 
the  Godhead  bodily."  9  Even  more,  as  in  the  Stoic  conception 
of  the  Logos,  He  is  the  divine  agent  in  creation;  "all  things 
have  been  created  through  Him  and  unto  Him." 10  Though  Paul 

1 1  Clement,  16.  2  Romans  I3-  4.  3 1  Cor.  I2. 

4  2  Cor.  128-  9.  5  Gal.  I1.  6  Prov.  822-  23. 

7  1  Cor.  210-  ".  s  Ibid.,  I24.  9  Col.  29.  10  Col.  I16. 


PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY  37 

probably  never  in  set  terms  called  Christ  God,1  he  taught 
Christ's  unity  in  character  with  God.  He  "knew  no  sin";2  He 
is  the  full  manifestation  of  the  love  of  God,  which  is  greater 
than  any  human  love,  and  the  motive  spring  of  the  Christian 
life  in  us.3  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  though  Paul  often  calls 
Christ  man,  he  gives  Him  an  absolutely  unique  position,  and 
classes  Him  with  God. 

If  the  Christ  of  experience  was  thus  pre-existent  and  post- 
existent  in  glory  for  Paul,  how  explain  the  Jesus  of  history? 
He  was  the  suffering  servant.4  His  humble  obedience  was 
followed,  as  in  the  earlier  Petrine  conception,  by  the  great 
reward.  "Wherefore  also  God  highly  exalted  Him  and  gave 
unto  Him  the  name  which  is  above  every  name  .  .  .  that 
every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord."  Paul 
looks  upon  the  whole  earthly  life  of  Jesus  as  one  of  humilia 
tion.  It  was  indeed  significant.  "God  was  in  Christ  recon 
ciling  the  world  unto  Himself."  5  Yet  it  was  only  "by  the 
resurrection"  that  He  was  "declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
with  power."  6  Paul's  Christology  combines,  therefore,  in  a 
remarkable  manner,  Hebrew  and  Gentile  conceptions.  In  it 
appear  the  suffering  and  exalted  servant,  the  pre-existent 
divine  wisdom,  the  divine  agent  in  creation,  and  the  redeemer 
power  who  for  man's  sake  came  down  from  heaven,  died,  and 
rose  again. 

Within  half  a  generation  of  Paul's  death,  however,  a  differ 
ing  interpretation  appeared,  probably  representing  an  inde 
pendent  line  of  thought.  It  was  that  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark. 
The  writer  knew  nothing  of  Paul's  view  of  Christ's  pre-existence. 
In  his  thought,  Christ  was  from  His  baptism  the  Son  of  God 
by  adoption.7  That  He  was  the  Son  of  God  thenceforth,  in 
all  His  earthly  lot,  is  the  evangelist's  endeavor  to  show. 
There  was  humiliation,  indeed,  but  there  was  a  glory  also  in 
His  earthly  life,  of  which  Paul  gives  no  hint.  He  had  not  to 
wait  for  the  demonstration  of  the  resurrection.  The  voice 
from  heaven  declared  Him  the  Son  at  baptism.  The  man 
with  an  unclean  spirit  saluted  Him  at  His  first  preaching  as 
"the  Holy  One  of  God"  (I24).  The  spirits  of  those  possessed 

1  The  translations,  which  imply  that,  in  Romans  95  and  Titus  213,  are  for 
various  reasons  to  be  rejected  as  Pauline. 

2  2  Cor.  521.  3  Romans  839,  57-  8 ;  Gal.  220.  4  Philippians  26-11. 
6  2  Cor.  519.           6  Romans  I4.  7  Mark  I9-11. 


38  CHRISTOLOGIES  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

cried,  "Thou  art  the  Son  of  God"  (312).  He  was  transfigured 
before  Peter,  James,  and  John,  while  a  heavenly  voice  pro 
claims:  "This  is  my  beloved  Son"  (92'8).  The  evangelist  can 
only  explain  the  lack  of  universal  recognition  in  Christ's  life 
time  on  earth  by  the  declaration  that  He  charged  spirits  and 
disciples  not  to  make  Him  known  (e.  g.  I34,  312,  543,  99).  It  is 
evident  that  this  is  a  very  different  interpretation  from  that 
of  Paul. 

Mark's  view  was  evidently  unsatisfactory  to  his  own  age. 
It  had  no  real  theory  of  the  incarnation.  It  does  not  trace 
back  the  sonship  far  enough.  If  that  sonship  was  manifested 
in  a  portion  of  Christ's  life,  why  not  in  all  His  life  ?  That  im 
pressed  the  writers  of  the  next  two  Gospels,  Matthew  and  Luke. 
Like  Mark,  they  have  no  trace  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  pre-exist- 
ence — their  authors  did  not  move  in  Paul's  theological  or  phil 
osophical  realm.  But  they  make  the  manifestation  of  Christ's 
divine  sonship  date  from  the  very  inception  of  His  earthly 
existence.  He  was  of  supernatural  birth.  Like  Mark,  both 
regard  His  life  as  other  than  one  of  humiliation  only. 

Yet  for  minds  steeped  in  the  thoughts  of  Paul  even  these 
could  not  be  satisfying  interpretations.  A  fourth  Gospel  ap 
peared  about  95-110,  probably  in  Ephesus,  which  sprang  into 
favor,  not  only  on  account  of  its  profoundly  spiritual  inter 
pretation  of  the  meaning  of  Christ,  but  because  it  combined 
in  one  harmonious  presentation  the  divided  elements  of  the 
Christologies  which  had  thus  far  been  current.  In  the  Gospel 
which  bears  the  name  of  John,  the  pre-existence  and  creative 
activity  of  Christ  is  as  fully  taught  as  by  Paul.  Christ  is  the 
Logos,  the  Word  who  "was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was 
God";  "All  things  were  made  by  Him"  (I1- 3).  There  is  no 
hint  of  virgin  birth,  as  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  but  a  real,  though 
unexplained,  incarnation  is  taught:  "The  Word  became  flesh 
and  dwelt  among  us"  (I14).  The  tendency  of  the  earlier  Gos 
pels  to  behold  glory,  as  well  as  humiliation,  in  Christ's  earthly 
life  is  carried  much  further.  That  life  is  one  primarily  in 
which  He  "manifested  His  glory"  (211,  see  I14).  He  declares 
to  the  woman  of  Samaria  that  He  is  the  Messiah  (426).  He  is 
regarded  as  "making  Himself  equal  with  God"  (518).  He  re 
members  the  glory  of  His  pre-existence  (175).  He  walks 
through  life  triumphantly  conscious  of  His  high  divine  mis 
sion.  In  the  account  of  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane  no  note 


OTHER  CHRISTOLOGIES  39 

appears  of  the  pathetic  prayer  that  this  cup  pass  from  Him.1 
In  the  story  of  the^  crucifixion  there  is  no  anguished  cry :  "  My 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me";2  rather,  as  with  a  sense  of 
a  predetermined  work  accomplished,  He  dies  with  the  words : 
"It  is  finished."3  Beyond  question  this  Christology  was 
eminently  satisfactory  to  the  second  century.  It  gave  an 
explanation,  natural  to  the  age,  of  that  lordship  which  Chris 
tian  feeling  universally  ascribed  to  Christ.  It  united  the  most 
valued  portions  of  the  older  Christologies.  Though  much  dis 
sent  from  it  was  to  appear,  it  was  formative  of  what  was  to 
triumph  as  orthodoxy. 

In  spite  of  this  Johannine  Christology,  traces  of  more  naive 
and  less  philosophic  interpretations  survived.  Such  were  those 
of  the  obscure  relics  of  extreme  Judaizing  Christianity,  known 
in  the  second  century  as  Ebionites.  To  them,  Jesus  was  the 
son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  who  so  completely  fulfilled  the  Jew 
ish  law  that  God  chose  Him  to  be  the  Messiah.  He  improved 
and  added  to  the  law,  and  would  come  again  to  found  a  Messi 
anic  kingdom  for  the  Jews.  Such,  in  a  very  different  way, 
was  Hennas  of  Rome  (115-140),  who  strove  to  combine  Paul's 
doctrine  of  "the  holy  pre-existent  Spirit  which  created  the  whole 
creation,"  4  with  that  of  the  suffering  and  exalted  servant. 
The  "servant,"  pictured  as  a  slave  in  the  vineyard  of  God, 
is  the  "flesh  in  which  the  holy  Spirit  dwelt  .  .  .  walking  hon 
orably  in  holiness  and  purity,  without  in  any  way  defiling  the 
Spirit."  5  As  a  reward,  God  chose  the  "flesh,"  i.  e.,  Jesus, 
"as  a  partner  with  the  holy  Spirit";  but  this  recompense  is 
not  peculiar  to  Him.  He  is  but  a  forerunner,  "for  all  flesh, 
which  is  found  undefiled  and  unspotted,  wherein  the  holy 
Spirit  dwelt,  shall  receive  a  reward."  6  This  is,  of  course,  in 
a  sense  adoptionist.  It  was  not  easy  for  unphilosophic  minds 
to  combine  in  one  harmonious  picture  the  Jesus  of  history 
and  the  Christ  of  experience;  and  even  in  philosophic  inter 
pretations  this  contrast  had  much  to  do  with  the  rise  and  wide 
spread  of  Gnosticism  in  the  second  century. 

The  significance  of  the  Gospel  according  to  John  in  the  de 
velopment  of  Christology  has  been  noted ;  its  influence  in  the 
interpretation  of  salvation  was  no  less  important.  With  it 
are  to  be  associated  the  Johannine  Epistles.  This  literature 

1 181-11 ;  compare  Mark  1432-42.  2  Mark  1534.  8  John  1930. 

*Sim.t  56.  *Ibid.  *  Ibid. 


40  THE  NATURE  OF  SALVATION 

probably  had  its  rise  in  a  region,  Ephesus,  where  Paul  long 
worked.  Its  position  is  Pauline,  but  developed  in  the  direc 
tion  of  a  much  intenser  mysticism.  This  mysticism  centres 
about  the  thoughts  of  life  and  union  with  Christ,  both  of 
which  are  Pauline,  and  yet  treated  in  a  way  unlike  that  of 
Paul.  Life  is  the  great  word  of  the  Johannine  literature. 
He  who  knows  the  Christ  of  present  experience  has  life.  "  This 
is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  know  Thee,  the  only  true  God, 
and  Him  whom  Thou  didst  send,  even  Jesus  Christ.3'1  For 
the  writer,  the  world  is  divisible  into  two  simple  classes :  "  He 
that  hath  the  Son  hath  the  life,  he  that  hath  not  the  Son  of 
God  hath  not  the  life."  2  By  life,  the  author  does  not  mean 
simple  existence.  To  him  it  is  blessed,  purified  immortality. 
"Now  are  we  children  of  God,  and  it  is  not  yet  made  mani 
fest  what  we  shall  be.  We  know  that  if  He  shall  be  manifested 
we  shall  be  like  Him."  3  This  life  is  based  on  union  with  Christ, 
and  this  union  is  a  real  sacramental  participation.  One  can 
but  feel  that  there  is  here  the  influence  of  ideas  similar  to  those 
of  the  mystery  religions.  Paul  had  valued  the  Lord's  Supper. 
To  him  it  was  a  "communion"  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
a  "remembrance"  of  Christ,  through  which:  "Ye  proclaim 
the  Lord's  death  till  He  come."4  The  Johannine  literature 
goes  further:  "Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man  and 
drink  His  blood  ye  have  not  life  in  yourselves." 5  The  Lord's 
Supper  is  already  a  mystical  sacrament  necessary  for  that 
union  with  Christ  which  is  to  procure  a  blessed  immortality. 

The  Johannine  literature  stands  on  a  spiritual  plane  of  ut 
most  loftiness.  It  is  instructive  to  see  how  some  of  these  prob 
lems  looked  to  a  contemporary  of  the  same  general  school, 
an  equally  earnest  Christian,  but  of  far  less  spiritual  elevation. 
Such  a  man  is  Ignatius  of  Antioch.  Condemned  as  a  Christian 
in  his  home  city,  in  the  last  years  of  Trajan,  110-117,  he  was 
sent  a  prisoner  to  Rome  to  be  thrown  to  the  wild  beasts.  Of 
his  history  little  is  known,  but  from  his  pen  seven  brief  letters 
exist,  six  of  them  written  to  the  churches  of  Ephesus,  Magnesia, 
Tralles,  Rome,  Philadelphia,  and  Smyrna ;  and  one  a  personal 
note  to  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna.  They  are  full  of  gratitude 
for  kindnesses  shown  on  his  journey,  of  warnings  against  spiri- 

1  John  173 ;  see  also  316-  36,  647,  1027.  28,  etc. 

2 1  John  512 ;  compare  John  336.  3 1  John  32. 

4 1  Cor.  1016,  II24-  26.  6  John  653. 


IGNATIUS  41 

tual  perils,  and  of  exhortations  to  unity.  Their  significance 
for  the  history  of  Christian  institutions  will  be  considered  in 
Section  IX.  Ignatius  has  the  same  lofty  Christology  as  the 
Johannine  literature.  Christ's  sacrifice  is  "the  blood  of 
God."1  He  greets  the  Romans  in  "Jesus  Christ  our  God." 
Yet  he  did  nojt  identify  Christ  wholly  with  the  Father.  "He 
is  truly  of  the  race  of  David  according  to  the  flesh,  but  Son  of 
God  by  the  divine  will  and  power."  As  in  the  Johannine 
literature,  Ignatius  held  union  with  Christ  necessary  for  life : 
"Christ  Jesus,  apart  from  whom  we  have  not  true  life"  3 — and 
that  life  is  ministered  through  the  Lord's  Supper.  His  concep 
tion  of  the  Supper  was,  however,  well-nigh  magical.  He  says 
of  it :  "  Breaking  one  bread  which  is  the  medicine  of  immor 
tality  and  the  antidote  that  we  should  not  die  but  live  forever 
in  Jesus  Christ."  4  Ignatius's  most  original  thought  was  that 
the  incarnation  was  the  manifestation  of  God  for  the  revela 
tion  of  a  new  humanity.  Before  Christ  the  world  was  under 
the  devil  and  death.  Christ  brought  life  and  immortality.5 

In  the  Johannine  and  the  Ignatian  writings  alike,  salvation 
was  life,  in  the  sense  of  the  transformation  of  sinful  mortality 
into  blessed  immortality.  This  thought  had  roots  in  Paul's 
teaching.  Through  the  school  of  Syria  and  Asia  Minor  this 
became,  in  the  Greek-speaking  church,  the  conception  of  sal 
vation.  It  was  one  that  lays  necessary  emphasis  on  the  per 
son  of  Christ  and  the  incarnation.  The  Latin  conception,  as 
will  be  seen,  was  that  salvation  consists  in  the  establishment 
of  right  relations  with  God  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  This, 
too,  had  its  Pauline  antecedents.  It  n^fcarily  lays  prime 
weight  on  divine  grace,  the  death  of  ChrisflBKd  the  atonement. 
These  conceptions  are  not  mutually  exclusive ;  but  to  these 
differences  of  emphasis  is  ultimately  due  much  of  the  contrast 
in  the  later  theological  development  of  East  and  West. 


SECTION  VIII.      GENTILE   CHRISTIANITY  OF  THE  SECOND 
CENTURY 

By  the  year  100  Christianity  was  strongly  represented  in 
Asia  Minor,  Syria,  Macedonia,  Greece,  and  Rome,  and  proba 
bly  also  in  Egypt,  though  regarding  its  introduction  into  that 


.  2Smyrn.,\.  8  Tral,  9. 

Eph.  20.  *Eph.  19,  20. 


42  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

land  there  is  no  certain  knowledge.  It  had  extended  very 
slightly,  if  at  all,  to  the  more  western  portion  of  the  empire. 
Asia  Minor  was  more  extensively  Christianized  than  any  other 
land.  About  111-113  Pliny,  the  governor  of  Bithynia,  could 
report  to  Trajan  that  it  was  affecting  the  older  temple  worship.1 
It  was  strongly  missionary  in  spirit,  and  constantly  extending, 
i Common  Christianity,  however,  was  far  from  representing, 
or  even  understanding,  the  lofty  theology  of  Paul  or  of  the 
**  Johannine  literature.  It  moved  in  a  much  simpler  range  of 
thought.  Profoundly  loyal  to  Christ,  it  conceived  of  Him 
primarily  as  the  divine  revealer  of  the  knowledge  of  the  true 
God,  and  the  proclaimer  of  a  "new  law"  of  simple,  lofty,  and 
strenuous  morality.  This  is  the  attitude  of  the  so-called 
"Apostolic  Fathers,"  with  the  exception  of  Ignatius,  whose 
thought  has  already  been  discussed. 

These  Christian  writers  were  thus  named  because  it  was 
long,  though  erroneously,  believed  that  they  were  personal  dis 
ciples  of  the  Apostles.  They  include  Clement  of  Rome  (c.  93- 
97);  Ignatius  of  Antioch  (c.  110-117);  Polycarp  of  Smyrna 
(c.  110-117);  Hermas  of  Rome  (c.  115-140);  the  author  who 
wrote  under  the  name  of  Barnabas,  possibly  in  Alexandria 
(c.  131) ;  and  the  anonymous  sermon  called  Second  Clement 
(c.  160-170).  To  this  literature  should  be  added  the  Teaching 
of  the  Twelve  Apostles  (c.  130-160,  but  presenting  a  survival 
of  very  primitive  conditions).  The  anonymous  Epistle  to  Di- 
ognetus,  often  included  among  the  writings  of  the  Apostolic  Fa 
thers,  is  probably  later  than  their  period. 

Christians  looked  upon  themselves  as  a  separated  people, 
a  new  race,  the  true  Israel,  whose  citizenship  was  no  longer 
in  the  Roman  Empire,  though  they  prayed  for  its  welfare  and 
that  of  its  ruler,  but  in  the  heavenly  Jerusalem.2  They  are 
the  church  "which  was  created  before  the  sun  and  moon," 
"and  for  her  sake  the  world  was  framed."3  The  conception  of 
the  church  was  not  primarily  that  of  the  aggregate  of  Chris 
tians  on  earth,  but  of  a  heavenly  citizenship  reaching  down 
to  earth,  and  gathering  into  its  own  embrace  the  scattered 
Christian  communities.4  To  this  church  the  disciple  is  ad 
mitted  by  baptism.  It  is  "builded  upon  waters."5  That 

1  Letters,  1096 ;  Ayer,  p.  20.  2 1  Clem.,  61 ;  Hermas,  Sim.,  1. 

3  Hermas,  Vis.,  24;  2  Clem.,  14.         4  Teaching,  9. 
5  Hermas,  Vis.,  33. 


CHRISTIAN  LIFE  AND  WORSHIP  43 

baptism  implied  antecedent  belief  in  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
message,  engagement  to  live  the  Christian  life,  and  repentance.1 
Services  were  held  on  Sunday,  and  probably  on  other  days.2 
These  had  consisted  from  the  Apostles'  time  of  two  kinds: 
meetings  for  reading  the  Scriptures,  preaching,  song  and 
prayer;3  and  A  common  evening  meal  with  which  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  conjoined.  By  the  time  Justin  Martyr  wrote  his 
Apology  in  Rome  (153),  the  common  meal  had  disappeared, 
and  the  Supper  was  joined  with  the  assembly  for  preaching, 
as  a  concluding  sacrament.4  The  Supper  was  the  occasion  for 
offerings  for  the  needy.5  The  beginnings  of  liturgical  forms 
are  to  be  found  before  the  close  of  the  first  century.6 

Christian  life  was  ascetic  and  legalistic.  Wednesday  and 
Friday  were  fasts,  which  were  called  "stations,"  as  of  soldiers 
of  Christ  on  guard.7  The  Lord's  Prayer  was  repeated  thrice 
daily.8  "Fasting  is  better  than  prayer,  but  almsgiving  than 
both."9  Second  marriage  was  discouraged.10  Simple  repent 
ance  is  not  sufficient  for  forgiveness,  there  must  be  satisfaction.11 
A  Christian  can  even  do  more  than  God  demands — works  of 
supererogation — and  will  receive  a  corresponding  reward.12 
Great  generosity  was  exercised  toward  the  poor,  widows,  and 
orphans,  some  going  so  far  as  to  sell  themselves  into  slavery 
to  supply  the  needy.13  The  rich  were  felt  to  be  rewarded  and 
helped  by  the  prayers  of  the  poor.14  Wealthy  congregations 
redeemed  prisoners  and  sent  relief  to  a  distance,  and  in  these 
works  none  was  more  eminent  than  that  of  Rome.  On  the 
other  hand,  though  slaves  were  regarded  as  Christian  brethren, 
their  manumission  was  discouraged  lest,  lacking  support,  they 
fall  into  evil  ways.15  There  is  evidence,  also,  that  the  more 
well-to-do  and  higher  stationed  found  the  ideal  of  brotherhood 
difficult  to  maintain  in  practice.16 

For  Christians  of  heathen  antecedents  it  was  difficult  to 
deny  the  existence  of  the  old  gods.  They  were  very  real  to 

1  Justin,  Apology,  61 ;  Ayer,  p.  33.        2  Justin,  ibid.,  67 ;  Ayer,  p.  35. 

3  Justin,  ibid.,  67 ;  see  also  Pliny,  Letters,  1096;  Ayer,  pp.  21,  35. 

4  65,  67 ;  Ayer,  pp.  33-35.  8  Justin,  ibid.,  67. 

6  1  Clem.,  59-61,  see  also  Teaching,  9,  10;  Ayer,  pp.  38,  39. 

7  Teaching,  8 ;  Hermas,  Sim.,  51 ;  Ayer,  p.  38. 

8  Teaching,  8;  Ayer,  p.  38.        92  Clem.,  16.        10  Hermas,  Hand..  44. 
11  Ibid.,  Sim.,  7.  12  Ibid.,  Sim.,  52-  3;  Ayer,  p.  48. 

13 1  Clem.,  55.  14  Hermas,  Sim.,  2. 

16  Ignatius  to  Polycarp,  4.          16  Hermas,  Sim.,  920. 


44  SPIRIT-FILLED  LEADERS 

them,  but  were  looked  upon  as  demons,  hostile  to  Christianity.1 
The  Christians  of  the  second  century  explained  the  resemblance 
between  their  own  rites  and  those  of  the  mystery  religions, 
of  which  they  were  aware,  as  a  parody  by  demons.2  Fear, 
thus  of  demon  influence  was  characteristic,  and  led  to  much 
use  of  exorcism  in  the  name  of  Christ.3  For  all  men  there  is 
to  be  a  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  and  a  final  judgment.4 

SECTION   IX.      CHRISTIAN   ORGANIZATION 

No  question  in  church  history  has  been  more  darkened  by 
controversy  than  that  of  the  origin  and  development  of  church 
officers,  and  none  is  more  difficult,  owing  to  the  scantiness  of 
the  evidence  that  has  survived.  It  is  probable  that  the  de 
velopment  was  diverse  in  different  localities.  Not  all  early 
Christian  congregations  had  identical  institutions  at  the  same 
time.  Yet  a  substantial  similarity  was  reached  by  the  middle 
of  the  second  century.  Something  has  already  been  said  of 
the  constitution  of  the  Jewish  Christian  congregations.5  The 
present  discussion  has  to  do  with  those  on  Gentile  soil. 

The  earliest  Gentile  churches  had  no  officers  in  the  strict 
sense.  Paul's  letters  to  the  Galatians,  Corinthians,  and  Romans 
make  no  mention  of  local  officers.  Those  to  the  Corinthians 
could  hardly  have  avoided  some  allusion,  had  such  officers  ex 
isted.  Their  nearest  approach6  is  only  an  exhortation  to  be 
in  subjection  to  such  as  Stephanas,  and  does  not  imply  that  he 
held  office.  The  allusion  in  1  Thess.  o12  to  those  that  "are 
over  you  in  the  Lord"  is,  at  best,  very  obscure.  Paul's  earlier 
epistles  show  that  all  ministries  in  the  church,  of  whatever 
sort,  were  looked  upon  as  the  direct  gift  of  the  Spirit,  who  in 
spires  each  severally  for  the  service  of  the  congregation.7  It 
is  fair  to  conclude  that  these  bearers  of  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit 
might  be  different  at  different  times,  and  many  in  the  church 
might  equally  become  vehicles  of  the  charismatic  inspiration. 
Paul,  however,  specifies  three  classes  of  leaders  as  in  particular 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit — Apostles,  prophets,  teachers.8  He  him 
self  regarded  his  Apostolate  as  charismatic.9  If  the  Apostles' 
work  was  primarily  that  of  founding  Christian  churches,  those 

1  Justin,  Apology,  5.  J  Ibid.,  62.  8  Ibid.,  Dialogue,  85. 

«  2  Clem.,  9,  16.  *  Ante,  p.  23.       6 1  Cor.  1618-  1S. 

7 1  Cor.  124-11-  28-30,  1426-33.      8 1  Cor.  1228. 


RISE  OF  PERMANENT  OFFICERS  45 

of  the  prophet  and  teacher  were  the  proclamation  or  interpre 
tation  of  the  divinely  inspired  message.  The  exact  shade  of 
difference  between  prophet  and  teacher  is  impossible  to  dis 
cover.  All,  however,  were  charismatic  men.  The  worst  of 
sins  was  to  refuse  to  hear  the  Spirit  speaking  through  them.1 
Yet  Paul  undoubtedly  exercised  a  real  im^sionary  superinten 
dence  over  the  churches  founded  by  him,  and  employed  his 
youngerassistants  in  the  work.2  It  is  difficult  to  distinguish  this 
from  ordinary  supervision  such  as  any  founder  might  employ. 
It  was  inevitable,  however,  that  such  unlimited  confidence 
as  the  earliest  congregations  possessed  in  charismatic  gifts 
should  be  abused.  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  shows 
that  self-seeking  and  fraudulent  claimants  to  divine  guidance 
were  soon  preying  on  the  churches.3  Tests  had  to  be  found 
to  discriminate  the  true  from  the  false.  In  the  Teaching,  and 
in  Herman*  the  touchstone  is  character.  In  1  John  41*4  it  is 
orthodoxy  of  teaching.  The  prophets  long  continued.  They 
are  to  be  found  in  Rome  as  late  as  the  time  of  Hermas  (115- 
140),  to  say  nothing  of  the  claims  of  those  whom  the  church 
judged  heretical,  like  Montanus  and  his  followers  even  later. 
Such  uncertain  leadership  could  not,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
continue  unmodified.  For  his  farewell  message  Paul  called  to 
Miletus  the  "elders"  (Trpeo-pvrepoi,)  of  the  church  of  Ephesus, 
exhorting  them  to  "take  heed  unto  yourselves  and  to  all  the 
flock  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops  "- 
eWcr/eo7rot — overseers.5  These  are  in  a  certain  sense  charis 
matic  men.  They  have  been  made  bishops  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
But  they  are  recipients  of  a  charism  which  makes  them  a  defi 
nite  group  having  particular  duties  to  the  congregation.  In 
one  of  his  latest  letters  Paul  speaks  of  the  "  bishops  and  deacons  " 
of  the  church  in  Philippi  (I1).  Even  if  this  be  held  to  mean 
the  discharge  of  functions  only — "those  who  oversee  and  those 
who  serve" — the  advance  beyond  the  conditions  of  the  Corin 
thian  epistles  is  apparent.  The  gifts  may  be  charismatic,  but 
the  recipients  are  beginning  to  be  holders  of  a  permanent 
official  relation.  Why  these  local  officers  developed  is  un 
known  ;  but  the  interests  of  good  order  and  worship,  and  the 
example  of  the  synagogue  are  probable  suggestions.  Absence 

1  Teaching,  11;  Ayer,  p.  40. 

2  E.  g.,  Timothy  in  1  Cor.  417,  1610. 

3 11 ;  Ayer,  p.  40.  4  Mand.,  11.  6  Acts  2017-29. 


46  BISHOPS  AND  PRESBYTERS 

of  prophets  and  teachers  by  whom  worship  could  be  con 
ducted  and  the  congregation  led  was  certainly  a  cause  in  some 
places.  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  directs:  "Ap 
point  for  yourselves,  therefore,  bishops  and  deacons  worthy 
of  the  Lord,  men  who  are  meek  and  not  lovers  of  money,  and 
true  and  approved ;  for  unto  you  they  also  perform  the  service 
of  the  prophets  and  teachers.  Therefore  despise  them  not; 
for  they  are  your  honorable  men  along  with  the  prophets  and 
teachers"  (15).  At  Philippi,  Ephesus,  and  in  the  Teaching, 
these  "bishops"  are  spoken  of  in  the  plural.  This  is  also  true 
of  Rome  and  of  Corinth  when  Clement  of  Rome  wrote  in 
93-97. l  Clement  speaks,  also,  of  those  against  whom  the 
church  in  Corinth  had  rebelled  as  its  "appointed  presby 
ters"  (54);  and  of  "those  who  have  offered  the  gifts  of  the 
bishop's  office"  as  presbyters  (44).  Poly  carp  of  Smyrna, 
writing  to  Philippi  in  110-117,  mentions  only  presbyters  and 
deacons  and  their  duties.  Hernias,  115-140,  would  seem  to 
imply  that  as  late  as  his  time  there  was  this  collegiate  office  at 
Rome.  It  is  "the  elders  (presbyters)  that  preside  over  the 
church."  2  He  speaks  only  of  the  duties  of  "deacons"  and 
"bishops."3 

Ancient  interpretation,  such  as  that  of  Jerome,  saw  in  these 
collegiate  bishops  and  presbyters  the  same  persons,  the  names 
being  used  interchangeably.  That  is  the  opinion  of  most 
modern  scholars,  and  seems  the  probable  conclusion.  The 
view  of  the  late  Edwin  Hatch,  as  developed  by  Harnack, 
holds,  however,  that  presbyters  were  the  older  brethren  in  the 
congregation,  from  whom  the  collegiate  bishops  were  taken. 
A  bishop  would  be  a  presbyter,  but  a  presbyter  not  necessarily 
a  bishop.  The  subject  is  one  of  difficulty,  the  more  so  as  the 
word  "presbyter,"  like  the  English  "elder"  is  used  in  early 
Christian  literature  both  as  a  general  designation  of  the  aged, 
and  as  a  technical  expression.  Its  particular  meaning  is  hard 
always  to  distinguish.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  till  some 
time  after  the  year  100,  Rome,  Greece,  and  Macedonia  had  at 
the  head  of  each  congregation  a  group  of  collegiate  bishops, 
or  presbyter-bishops,  with  a  number  of  deacons  as  their  help 
ers.  These  were  chosen  by  the  church,4  or  at  least  "with  the 
consent  of  the  whole  church."  5 

1 1  Clem.,  42,  44.  2  Vis.,  24.  3  Sim.,  926.  27. 

4  Teaching,  15;  Ayer,  p.  41.  5  1  Clem.,  44;  Ayer,  p.  37. 


THE  THREEFOLD  MINISTRY  47 

Contemporary  with  the  later  portion  of  the  literature  just 
described,  there  is  another  body  of  writings  which  indicates 
the  existence  of  a  threefold  ministry  consisting  of  a  single, 
monarchical  bishop,  presbyters,  and  deacons  in  each  congre 
gation  of  the  region  to  which  it  applies.  This  would  appear 
to  be  the  intimations  of  1  Timothy  and  Titus,  though  the  treat 
ment  is  obscure.  Whatever  Pauline  elements  these  much  dis 
puted  letters  contain,  their  sections  on  church  government 
betray  a  development  very  considerably  beyond  that  of  the 
other  Pauline  literature,  and  can  scarcely  be  conceived  as 
belonging  to  Paul's  time.  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the 
regions  to  which  the  letters  are  directed  are  Asia  Minor  and 
the  adjacent  island  of  Crete,  the  former  being  one  of  the  terri 
tories  in  which  the  monarchical  bishopric  is  earliest  evident 
in  other  sources. 

What  is  relatively  obscure  in  these  epistles  is  abundantly 
clear  in  those  of  Ignatius,  110-117.  Himself  the  monarchical 
bishop  of  Antioch,1  he  exalts  in  every  way  the  authority  of 
the  local  monarchical  bishop  in  the  churches  of  Ephesus, 
Magnesia,  Tralles,  Philadelphia,  and  Smyrna.  In  four  of 
these  churches  he  mentions  the  bishop  by  name.  Only  when 
writing  to  the  Romans  he  speaks  of  no  bishop,  probably  for  the 
sufficient  reason  that  there  was  as  yet  no  monarchical  bishop 
at  Rome.  The  great  value  to  Ignatius  of  the  monarchical 
bishop  is  as  a  rallying-point  of  unity,  and  as  the  best  opponent 
of  heresy.  "Shun  divisions  as  the  beginning  of  evils.  Do  ye 
all  follow  your  bishop,  as  Jesus  Christ  followed  the  Father, 
and  the  presbytery  as  the  Apostles,  and  to  the  deacons  pay 
respect."  The  monarchical  bishopric  is  not  yet  diocesan,  it 
is  the  headship  of  the  local  church,  or  at  most  of  the  congrega 
tions  of  a  single  city ;  but  Ignatius  does  not  treat  it  as  a  new 
institution.  He  accepts  it  as  established,  though  it  evidently 
did  not  always  command  the  obedience  which  he  desired.3 
It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  monarchical  bishopric  must 
have  come  into  being  between  the  time  when  Paul  summoned 
the  presbyter-bishops  to  Miletus4  and  that  at  which  Ignatius 
wrote. 

1  Romans  2.  2  Smyrn.,  8. 

3  See  Phila.,  7,  where  Ignatius  declares  it  is  by  charismatic  inspiration, 
and  not  by  knowledge  of  divisions,  that  he  exhorted:   "Do  nothing  with 
out  the  bishop." 

4  Acts  2017-25. 


48  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION 

How  the  monarchical  bishopric  arose  is  a  matter  of  conjec 
ture.  Reasons  that  have  been  advanced  by  modern  scholars 
are  leadership  in  worship  and  the  financial  oversight  of  the 
congregation  in  the  care  of  the  poor  and  other  obligations  of 
charity.  These  are  probable,  the  first-named  perhaps  the  more 
probable.  It  is  sufficient  to  observe,  however,  that  leadership 
of  a  congregation  by  a  committee  of  equals  is  unworkable  for 
any  protracted  time.  Some  one  is  sure  to  be  given  headship. 

One  further  observation  of  great  importance  is  to  be  made. 
Clement  of  Rome  (93-97),  writing  when  Rome  had  as  yet  no 
monarchical  bishop,  traces  the  existence  of  church  officers  to 
apostolical  succession.1  It  is  no  impeachment  of  the  firmness 
of  his  conviction,  though  it  militates  against  the  historic  ac 
curacy  of  his  view,  that  he  apparently  bases  it  on  a  misunder 
standing  of  Paul's  statement  in  1  Cor.  1615>  16.  On  the  other 
hand,  Ignatius,  though  urging  in  the  strongest  terms  the  value 
of  the  monarchical  episcopate  as  the  bond  of  unity,  knows 
nothing  of  an  apostolical  succession.  It  was  the  union  of  these 
two  principles,  a  monarchical  bishop  in  apostolical  succession, 
which  occurred  before  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  that 
immensely  enhanced  the  dignity  and  power  of  the  bishopric^ 
By  the  sixth  decade  of  the  second  century  monarchical  bishops 
had  become  well-nigh  universal.  The  institution  was  to  gain 
further  strength  in  the  Gnostic  and  Montanist  struggles;  but 
it  may  be  doubted  whether  anything  less  rigid  could  have  car 
ried  the  church  through  the  crises  of  the  second  century. 

SECTION  X.      RELATIONS  OF  CHRISTIANITY  TO  THE 
ROMAN   GOVERNMENT 

Christianity  was  at  first  regarded  by  the  Roman  authorities 
as  a  branch  of  Judaism,  which  stood  under  legal  protection.2 
The  hostility  of  the  Jews  themselves  must  have  made  a  dis 
tinction  soon  evident,  and  by  the  time  of  the  Neronian  persecu 
tion  in  Rome  (64)  it  was  plainly  drawn.  The  Roman  victims 
were  not  then  charged,  however,  primarily  with  Christianity, 
but  with  arson — though  their  unpopularity  with  the  multitude 
made  them  ready  objects  of  suspicion.  By  the  time  that 
1  Peter  was  written  (c.  90),  the  mere  fact  of  a  Christian  profes 
sion  had  become  a  cause  for  punishment  (416).  How  much 

1 1  Cor.  42,  44;  Ayer,  pp.  36,  37.  2  Acts  1814-18. 


PERSECUTIONS  49 

earlier  "the  name"  had  become  a  sufficient  criminal  charge  it 
is  impossible  to  say.  Trajan's  reply  to  Pliny,  the  governor  of 
Bithynia  (111-113),  presupposes  that  Christianity  was  already 
viewed  as  criminal.  That  already  recognized,  the  Emperor 
orders  what  must  be  deemed  mild  procedure  from  his  point  of  y 
view.  Christians  are  not  to  be  hunted  out,  and,  if  willing  to 
abjure  by  sacrifice,  are  to  be  acquitted.  Only  in  case  of  per 
sistence  are  they  to  be  punished.1  From  the  standpoint  of  a 
faithful  Christian  profession  this  was  a  test  which  could  only  be 
met  by  martyrdom.  Trajan's  immediate  successors,  Hadrian 
(117-138),  and  Antoninus  Pius  (138-161)  pursued  the  same 
general  policy,  though  discouraging  mob  accusations.  Marcus 
Aurelius  (161-180)  gave  renewed  force  to  the  law  against  strange 
religions  (176),  and  initiated  a  sharper  period  of  persecution 
which  extended  into  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Commodus 
(180-192).  Commodus,  however,  treated  Christianity,  on  the 
whole,  with  the  toleration  of  indifference.  Always  illegal,  and 
with  extreme  penalties  hanging  over  it,  the  Christian  profession 
involved  constant  peril  for  its  adherents;  yet  the  number  of 
actual  martyrs  in  this  period  appears  to  have  been  relatively 
.small  compared  with  those  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries. 
V  No  general  persecution  occurred  before  250. 

The  charges  brought  against  the  Christians  were  atheism 
and  anarchy.2  Their  rejection  of  the  old  gods  seemed  atheism ; 
their  refusal  to  join  in  emperor-wrorship  appeared  treasonable.3 
Popular  credulity,  made  possible  by  the  degree  to  which  the 
Christians  held  aloof  from  ordinary  civil  society,  charged  them 
with  crimes  as  revolting  as  they  were  preposterous.  A  mis 
understanding  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  Christ's  presence 
in  the  Supper  must  be  deemed  the  occasion  of  the  common 
accusation  of  cannibalism;  and  its  celebration  secretly  in  the 
evening  of  that  of  gross  licentiousness.4  Much  of  the  govern 
mental  persecution  of  Christianity  in  this  period  had  its  incite 
ment  in  mob  attacks  upon  Christians.  That  was  the  case  at 
Smyrna  when  Polycarp  suffered  martyrdom  in  156 ;  wThile  a 
boycott,  on  the  basis  of  charges  of  immoral  actions,  was  the 
immediate  occasion  of  the  fierce  persecution  in  Lyons  and 
Vienne  in  177. 5  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  major- 
Pliny's  Letters  1097;  Ayer,  p.  22.  2  Justin,  Apology,  5,  6;  11,  12. 
3  Martyrdom  of  Polycarp,  3,  8-10.  4  Justin,  Dialogue,  10. 
6  Eusebius,  Church  History,  51. 


50  THE  APOLOGISTS 

ity  of  judicial  proceedings  against  Christians  in  this  period 
seem  rather  to  have  been  under  the  general  police  power  of 
magistrates  to  repress  disturbance  than  by  formal  trial  on  the 
specific  criminal  charge  of  Christianity.  Both  procedures  are 
to  be  found.  To  all  these  accusations  the  best  answer  of  the 
Christians  was  their  heroic  constancy  in  loyalty  to  Christ,  and 
their  superior  morality  as  judged  by  the  standards  of  society 
about  them. 

SECTION  XI.     THE  APOLOGISTS 

These  charges  against  Christians,  and  the  hostile  attitude  of 
the  Roman  government,  aroused  a  number  of  literary  defenders, 
who  are  known  as  the  Apologists.  Their  appearance  shows 
that  Christianity  was  making  some  conquest  of  the  more  in 
tellectual  elements  of  society.  Their  appeal  is  distinctly  to 
intelligence.  Of  these  Apologists  the  first  was  Quadratus, 
probably  of  Athens,  who  about  125  presented  a  defense  of  Chris 
tianity,  now  preserved  only  in  fragments,  to  the  Emperor 
Hadrian.  Aristides,  an  Athenian  Christian  philosopher,  made 
a  similar  appeal,  about  140,  to  Antoninus  Pius.  Justin  wrote 
the  most  famous  of  these  defenses,  probably  in  Home,  about 
153.  His  disciple,  Tatian,  who  combined  the  four  Gospels 
into  his  famous  Diatessaron,  also  belonged  to  the  Apologists. 
With  them  are  to  be  reckoned  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  who 
wrote  between  169  and  180 ;  and  Athenagoras,  of  whom  little 
is  known  personally,  whose  defense,  which  survives,  was  made 
about  the  year  177.  Here  also  belongs  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus, 
often  reckoned  among  the  writings  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  any  of  these  Apologists  greatly 
influenced  heathen  opinion,  or  that  their  appeal  was  seriously 
considered  by  the  rulers  whom  it  was  their  desire  to  persuade. 
Their  work  was  deservedly  valued  in  Christian  circles,  however, 
and  undoubtedly  strengthened  Christian  conviction  of  the 
nobility  of  the  cause  so  earnestly  defended.  Several  of  the 
Apologists  were  from  the  ranks  of  the  philosophers,  and  their 
philosophical  interpretation  aided  in  the  development  of  the 
ology.  The  most  significant  was  Justin,  and  he  may  well  stand 
as  typical  of  the  whole  movement. 

Justin,  called  the  Martyr,  from  his  heroic  witness  unto  death 
in  Rome  under  the  prefect  Rusticus,  about  165,  was  born  in 
Shechem,  in  the  ancient  Samaria,  of  heathen  ancestry.  He 


v 

JUSTIN  MARTYR  51 

lived,  for  a  time  at  least,  in  Ephesus,  and  it  was  in  its  vicinity 
probably  that  the  conversion  of  which  he  gives  a  vivid  account 
took  place.1  An  eager  student  of  philosophy,  he  accepted  suc 
cessively  Stoicism,  Aristotelianism,  Pythagoreanism,  and  Pla- 
tonism.  While  a  Platonist  his  attention  was  directed  to  the 
Hebrew  prophets,  "men  more  ancient  than  all  those  who  are 
esteemed  philosophers."  Theirs  is  the  oldest  and  truest  ex 
planation  "of  the  beginning  and  end  of  things  and  of  those 
matters  which  the  philosopher  ought  to  know,"  since  they  were 
"filled  with  the  holy  Spirit."  "They  glorified  the  Creator, 
the  God  and  Father  of  all  things,  and  proclaimed  His  Son,  the 
Christ."  By  his  newly  acquired  conviction  of  the  truth  of 
their  ancient  prophetic  message,  Justin  says :  "  straightway  a 
flame  was  kindled  in  my  soul ;  and  a  love  of  the  prophets  and 
of  those  men  who  are  friends  of  Christ.  ...  I  found  this 
philosophy  alone  to  be  safe  and  profitable."  These  quotations 
show  the  character  of  Justin's  religious  experience.  It  was  not 
a  profound  and  mystical  union  with  a  risen  Lord,  as  with 
Paul.  It  was  not  a  sense  of  forgiveness  of  sin.  It  was  a  con 
viction  that  in  Christianity  is  the  oldest,  truest,  and  most 
divine  of  philosophies.  Justin  continued  to  look  upon  himself 
as  a  philosopher.  He  made  his  home  in  Rome  and  there 
wrote,  about  153,  his  Apology,  addressed  to  the  Emperor 
Antoninus  Pius  and  that  sovereign's  adopted  sons,  defend 
ing  Christianity  from  governmental  antagonism  and  heathen 
criticisms.  A  little  later,  perhaps  on  a  visit  to  Ephesus,  he 
composed  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  similarly  presenting  the 
Christian  case  against  Jewish  objections.  A  second  sojourn 
in  Rome  brought  him  to  a  martyr's  death. 

Justin's  Apology  (often  called  two  Apologies,  though  the 
"  second "  is  only  an  appendix)  is  a  manly,  dignified,  and  effec 
tive  defense.  Christians,  if  condemned  at  all,  should  be  pun 
ished  for  definite  proved  crimes,  not  for  the  mere  name  without 
investigation  of  their  real  character.  They  are  atheists  only 
in  that  they  count  the  popular  gods  demons  unworthy  of 
worship,  not  in  respect  to  the  true  God.  They  are  anarchists 
only  to  those  who  do  not  understand  the  nature  of  the  kingdom 
that  they  seek.  Justin  then  argues  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
especially  from  the  fulfilment  of  Old  Testament  prophecy,  and 
briefly  explains  Christian  sacraments  and  worship. 

1  Dialogue,  2-8. 


52  JUSTIN  MARTYR 

As  a  theologian,  Justin's  convictions  were  the  result  of  his 
own  experience.  His  central  belief  was  that  Christianity  was 
the  truest  of  philosophies,  because  taught  by  the  prophets  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  by  the  divine  Logos  "our  Teacher 
.  .  .  who  is  both  Son  and  Apostle  of  God  the  Father."  *  This 
divine  Logos  he  conceives,  in  true  Stoic  fashion,  as  everywhere 
and  always  at  work,  teaching  the  Greeks,  of  whom  he  cites 
Socrates  and  Heraclitus,  and  the  "barbarians,"  such  as  Abra 
ham,  so  that  these,  and  all  who  at  any  time  obeyed  the  same 
guidance  were  really  Christians.2  His  great  advance  on  Stoi 
cism  is  his  conviction  that  this  all-illuminating  divine  Logos 
became  definitely  incarnate  in  Christ,  so  that  in  Him  is  the 
full  revelation  of  that  which  elsewhere  is  less  distinctly  seen. 
The  content  of  the  Christian  message  Justin  conceives  in  terms 
very  similar  to  those  of  the  best  contemporary  heathen  phi 
losophy — knowledge  of  God,  morality,  the  hope  of  immortality, 
and  future  rewards  and  punishments.  Like  common  non- 
Pauline  Christianity,  he  views  the  Gospel  as  a  new  law,  teaching 
a  somewhat  ascetic  moral  life.  Justin's  emphasis  is  on  the 
divine  Logos,  subordinate  to  God  the  Father,  yet  His  Son, 
His  agent,  and  one  with  Him  in  some  true,  though  rather  in 
definite,  sense.  This  emphasis  is  really  at  the  expense  of  the 
historic  Jesus,  for  though  both  are  identified,  the  earthly  life 
of  Jesus  has  little  interest  for  Justin  save  as  the  great  historic 
instance  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos,  and  therefore  the 
occasion  on  which  the  divine  philosophy  was  most  fully  re 
vealed.  He  does,  indeed,  speak  of  Christ's  "cleansing  by  His 
blood  those  who  believe  on  Him"  ;3  but  such  thoughts  are  not 
primary.  Hence  the  theology  of  Justin,  faithful  martyr  though 
he  was,  was  essentially  rationalizing,  with  little  of  the  pro 
foundly  religious  content  so  conspicuous  in  Paul,  the  Johannine 
^literature,  or  even  in  Ignatius.  It  marks,  however,  a  conscious 
\union  of  Christian  thought  with  the  Gentile  philosophy,  and 
I  therefore  the  beginnings  of  a  "scientific"  theology. 

1  Apology,  12.  2  75^  46 ;  Ayer,  p.  72.  3  Ibid.,  32. 


PERIOD,  II.    FROM  THE  GNOSTIC  CRISIS 
TO  CONSTANTINE 

SECTION   I.      GNOSTICISM 

THE  later  New  Testament  literature,  and  at  least  one  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers,  strongly  combat  conceptions  of  Christ 
which  it  is  evident  must  have  been  widely  prevalent,  especially 
in  Asia  Minor,  in  the  opening  years  of  the  second  century. 
These  views  denied  His  real  humanity  and  His  actual  death. 
He  had  not  come  "in  the  flesh,"  but  in  ghost-like,  Docetic 
appearance.1  These  opinions  have  generally  been  regarded  as 
the  beginnings  of  Gnosticism.  It  is  true  that  this  Docetic 
conception  of  Christ  was  a  feature  of  much  Gnostic  teaching. 
It  is  more  probable,  however,  that  these  early  teachings  were 
more  largely  based  on  an  attempt  to  explain  a  seeming  contra 
diction  between  the  Jesus  of  history  and  the  Christ  of  experi 
ence,  than  on  purely  Gnostic  speculations.  That  earthly  life 
of  humiliation  was  so  contrasted  with  His  pre-existent  and  post- 
existent  glory,  that  the  simplest  solution  of  the  Christologicai 
problem  may  well  have  seemed  to  some  the  denial  of  the  reality 
of  His  earthly  life  altogether.  Christ  did,  indeed,  appear. 
He  taught  His  disciples ;  but  all  the  time  as  a  heavenly  being, 
not  one  of  flesh  and  blood. 

Gnosticism,  properly  speaking,  was  something  much  more 
far-reaching.  The  height  of  its  influence  was  from  about  135 
to  160,  though  it  continued  a  force  long  after  the  latter  date. 
It  threatened  to  overwhelm  the  historic  Christian  faith,  and  by 
so  doing  brought  upon  the  Christian  Church  its  gravest  crisis 
since  the  Pauline  battle  for  freedom  from  law.  Its  spread  and 
consequent  peril  were  made  possible  by  the  relatively  weakly 
organized,  and  doctrinally  .undefined  state  of  the  church  at  its 
beginning.  The  church  overcame  the  danger ;  but  at  the  cost 
of  the  development  of  a  rigidity  of  organization,  creed,  and 
government  which  rendered  the  condition  of  the  church  at 

1 1  John  I1-3,  222,  42-  3;  Ignatius,  Trallians,  9-11;  Smyrn.,  1-6. 

53 


54  GNOSTICISM 

the  close  of  the  second  century  a  striking  contrast  to  that  of 
its  beginning.1 

Gnosticism  professed  to  be  based  on  "knowledge"  (yvwans) , 
but  not  as  that  word  is  now  commonly  understood.  Its  knowl 
edge  was  always  a  mystical,  supernatural  wisdom,  by  which  the 
initiates  were  brought  to  a  true  understanding  of  the  universe, 
and  were  saved  from  this  evil  world  of  matter.  It  had  a  fun 
damental  doctrine  of  salvation.  In  these  respects  it  was  akin 
to  the  mystery  religions.  Its  most  prominent  characteristic, 
however,  was  its  syncretism.  It  took  unto  itself  many  elements 
from  many  sources,  and  assumed  many  forms.  It  is,  therefore, 
impossible  to  speak  of  a  single  type  of  Gnosticism.  It  was 
prevailingly  mystical,  magical,  or  philosophical  according  to 
the  dominant  admixture  in  its  syncretism.  Gnosticism  was 
pre-Christian  in  its  origin,  and  was  in  existence  before  Chris 
tianity  came  into  the  world.  There  were  Jewish  and  heathen 
types.  It  is  represented  in  the  Hermetic  literature  of  Egypt. 
It  had  astral  elements  which  may  be  traced  back  to  Babylonian 
religious  conceptions,  a  dualistic  view  of  the  universe,  Per 
sian  in  origin,  and  a  doctrine  of  emanations  from  God  in  the 
"pleroma"  or  realm  of  spirit,  which  was  probably  Egyptian. 
Perhaps  its  most  fundamental  conception,  the  wholly  evil 
character  of  the  phenomenal  world,  was  due  to  a  combination 
of  the  Platonic  theory  of  the  contrast  between  the  real  spiritual 
sphere  of  "  ideas,"  and  this  visible  world  of  phenomena,  inter 
preted  in  terms  of  Persian  dualism — the  one  good  and  that  to 
which  man  strives  to  return,  the  other  wholly  bad  and  the 
place  of  his  imprisonment.  The  world  of  matter  is  evil.  Its 
creator  and  ruler  is  not,  therefore,  the  high,  good  God,  but  an 
inferior  and  imperfect  being,  the  demiurge.  Man,  to  be  saved, 
must  be  freed  from  this  bondage  to  the  visible  world,  and  its 
rulers,  the  planetary  spirits ;  and  the  means  of  his  freedom  is 
"knowledge"  (7i>a>oY?),  a  mystical,  spiritual  enlightenment  for 
the  initiated  which  brings  him  into  communion  with  the  true 
realm  of  spiritual  realities. 

Strongly  syncretistic  already,  Gnosticism  found  much  in 
Christianity  which  it  could  use.  In  particular,  the  figure  of 
Christ  was  especially  adapted  to  give  a  definite  and  concrete  cen 
tre  to  its  theory  of  a  higher  saving  knowledge.  He  was  the  re- 

1  Useful  selections  regarding  Gnosticism  may  be  found  in  Ayer,  pp. 
76-102. 


GNOSTICISM  55 

vealer  of  the  hitherto  unknown  high  and  all-perfect  God  to  men. 
By  that  illumination  all  "spiritual"  men,  who  were  capable  of 
receiving  it,  would  be  led  back  to  the  realm  of  the  good  God. 
Since  the  material  world  is  evil,  Christ  could  not  have  had 
a  real  incarnation,  and  the  Gnostics  explained  His  appearance 
either  as  Docetic  and  ghostly  or  as  a  temporary  indwelling  of 
the  man  Je"5us  or  as  an  apparent  birth  from  a  virgin  mother 
without  partaking  of  material  nature.  The  God  of  the  Old 
Testament,  as  the  creator  of  this  visible  world,  cannot  be  the 
high  God  whom  Christ  revealed,  but  the  inferior  demiurge. 
That  all  Christians  did  not  possess  the  saving  "knowledge,"  the 
Gnostics  explained  by  holding  it  to  be  a  secret  teaching  im 
parted  by  the  Apostles  to  their  more  intimate  disciples,  a  speak 
ing  "wisdom  among  the  perfect."  1  It  is  true  that  while  Paul 
was  in  no  sense  .a  Gnostic,  there  were  many  things  in  Paul's 
teachings  of  which  Gnostics  availed  themselves.  His  sharp 
contrast  between  flesh  and  spirit ; 2  his  conception  of  Christ  as 
victor  over  those  "principalities  and  powers"  which  are  the 
"world  rulers  of  this  darkness,"3  and  his  thought  of  Christ  as 
the  Man  from  Heaven,4  were  all  ideas  which  the  Gnostics  could 
employ.  Paul  was  always  to  them  the  chief  Apostle. 

Gnosticism  was  divided  into  many  sects  and  presented  a 
great  variety  of  forms.  In  all  of  them  the  high,  good  God  is 
the  head  of  the  spiritual  world  of  light,  often  called  the  "ple- 
roma."  From  that  world  fragments  have  become  imprisoned 
in  this  visible  world  of  darkness  and  evil.  In  later  Gnosticism 
this  fallen  element  from  the  pleroma  is  represented  as  the  lowest 
of  a  series  of  aeons,  or  spiritual  beings,  emanating  from  the  high 
God.  To  rescue  this  fallen  portion,  the  seeds  of  light  in  the 
visible  evil  world,  Christ  came,  bringing  the  true  "knowledge." 
By  His  teaching  those  capable  of  receiving  it  are  restored  to 
the  pleroma.  They  are  at  best  few.  Most  Gnostics  divided 
mankind  into  "spiritual,"  capable  of  salvation,  and  "material" 
who  could  not  receive  the  message.  Later  Gnosticism,  es 
pecially  the  school  of  Valentinus,  taught  a  threefold  division, 
"spiritual,"  who  alone  could  attain  "knowledge"  ;  "psychical," 
capable  of  faith,  and  of  a  certain  degree  of  salvation ;  and  "  ma 
terial,"  who  were  hopeless* 

Christian   tradition   represented   the   founder   of   Christian 

1 1  Cor.  26.  2  Romans  822-25 ;  1  Cor.  1560. 

8  Col.  216;  Eph.  612.  4 1  Cor.  1547. 


56  MARCION 

Gnosticism  to  be  Simon  Magus,1  but  of  his  real  relations  to  it 
little  is  known.  More  clearly  defined  leaders  are  Satornilus 
of  Antioch,  who  labored  before  150;  Basilides,  who  taught  in 
Alexandria  about  130 ;  and,  above  all,  Valentinus,  who  was 
active  in  Rome  from  about  135  to  165,  and  who  must  be  re 
garded  as  one  of  the  most  gifted  thinkers  of  the  age. 

Gnosticism  was  an  immense  peril  for  the  church.  It  cut 
out  the  historic  foundations  of  Christianity.  Its  God  is  not 
the  God  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  is  the  work  of  an  in 
ferior  or  even  evil  being.  Its  Christ  had  no  real  incarnation, 
death,  or  resurrection.  Its  salvation  is  for  the  few  capable  of 
spiritual  enlightenment.  The  peril  was  the  greater  because 
Gnosticism  was  represented  by  some  of  the  keenest  minds  in 
the  church  of  the  second  century.  The  age  was  syncretistic, 
and  in  some  respects  Gnosticism  was  but  the  fullest  accomplish 
ment  of  that  amalgamation  of  Hellenic  and  Oriental  philosophi 
cal  speculation  with  primitive  Christian  beliefs  which  was  in 
greater  or  less  degree  in  process  in  all  Christian  thinking. 

SECTION    II.      MARCION 

A  special  interest  attaches  to  Marcion  as  one  who  was  the 
first  church  reformer.2  Born  in  Sinope,  in  Asia  Minor,  where 
he  was  a  wealthy  ship-owner,  he  came  to  Rome  about  139,  and 
joined  the  Roman  congregation,  making  it  a  gift  for  its  benevo 
lent  work  equivalent  to  ten  thousand  dollars.  He  soon  came 
to  feel  that  Christianity  was  under  the  bondage  of  legalism, 
and,  under  the  light  of  the  Gnostic  teaching  of  Cerdo,  he  saw 
the  root  of  this  evil  in  acceptance  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
its  God.  Never  more  than  partially  a  Gnostic,  his  prime  in 
terest  was  in  church  reform.  Salvation,  with  him,  was  by  right 
faith  rather  than  by  knowledge.  To  Marcion,  Paul  was  the 
only  Apostle  who  had  understood  the  Gospel ;  all  the  rest  had 
fallen  into  the  errors  of  Judaism.  The  God  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment  is  a  just  God,  in  the  sense  of  "an  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a 
tooth  for  a  tooth."  He  created  the  world  and  gave  the  Jew 
ish  law.  Christ,  who  was  a  Docetic  manifestation,  revealed 
the  heretofore  unknown  good  God  of  mercy.  The  God  of  the 
Old  Testament  opposed  Him;  but  in  Christ  the  authority  of 
the  Jewish  law  was  done  away,  and  the  "just  God"  became  un- 

1  Acts  89-24;  Irenseus,  Heresies,  I23;  Ayer,  p.  79. 

2  See  selections,  Ayer,  pp.  102-105. 


MARCION  AND  MONTANISM  57 

just  because  of  this  unwarranted  hostility  to  the  revealer  of  the 
"good  God."  The  Old  Testament  and  its  God  are  therefore  to 
be  rejected  by  Christians.  Christ  proclaimed  a  Gospel  of  love 
and  of  righteousness  by  faith,  though,  curiously  enough,  Marcion 
was  extremely  ascetic  in  his  conception  of  the  Christian  life.  * 

Marcion's  endeavor  to  call  the  Roman  Church  back  to  what 
he  deemed  the  Gospel  of  Christ  and  of  Paul  resulted  in  his 
own  excommunication  about  144.  He  now  gathered  followers 
into  a  separated  church.  For  their  use  he  compiled  a  canon 
of  sacred  books,  composed  of  the  epistles  of  Paul  (omitting  the 
•Pastorals),  and  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  shorn  of  all  passages  which 
implied  that  Christ  regarded  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament 
as  His  Father,  or  was  in  any  way  related  to  Him.  As  far  as 
is  known,  this  was  the  first  attempt  to  form  an  authoritative 
collection  of  New  Testament  writings. 

Marcion's  movement  was  probably  the  most  dangerous  of 
those  associated  with  Gnosticism.  He  sundered  Christianity 
from  its  historic  background  as  completely  as  had  the  more 
speculative  Gnostic  theories.  He  denied  a  real  incarnation, 
and  condemned  the  Old  Testament  and  its  Crocf  Atl  this  was 
the  more  plausible  because  done  in  the  name  of  a  protest 
against  growing  legalism.  For  such  a  protest  there  was  much 
justification.  His  churches  spread  extensively,  in  the  Orient 
especially,  and  survived  into  the  fifth  century.  His  own  later 

history  is  wholly  unknown. 

\s^ 

SECTION   III.      MONTANISM 

Unlike  Gnosticism,  Montanism  was  a  movement  distinctly  of 
Christian  origin.  In  mostfof  the  churches  of  the  second  cen 
tury  the  early  hope  of  the  speedy  return  of  Christ  was  growing 
dim.  The  consciousness  of  the  constant  inspiration  of  the 
Spirit,  characteristic  of  the  Apostolic  Churches,  had  also  largely 
faded.  With  this  declining  sense  of  the  immediacy  of  the  Spirit's 
present  work  came  an  increasing  emphasis  on  His  significance 
as  the  agent  of  revelation.  Paul  had  identified  the  Spirit  and 
Christ.1  That  was  not  the  general  feeling  half  a  century  later. 
The  Spirit  had  been  the  inspiration  of  prophecy  in  the  Old 
Testament.2  He  guided  the  New  Testament  writers.3  To 

1 2  Cor.  317. 

2  E.  g.,  1  Clem.  8,  13,  16;  "the  prophetic  Spirit,"  Justin,  Apology,  13. 

3 1  Clem.,  47. 


58  MONTANISM 

Christian  thought  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  differentiated  from  Christ,  but  was  classed, 
like  Him,  with  God.  This  appears  in  the  Trinitarian  baptismal 
formula,1  which  was  displacing  the  older  baptism  in  the  name 
of  Christ.2  Trinitarian  formula  were  frequently  in  use  by 
the  close  of  the  first  and  beginning  of  the  second  century.3 
The  Johannine  Gospel  represented  Christ  as  promising  the 
coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  disciples:  "When  the  Com 
forter  is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father, 
even  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father, 
He  shall  bear  Witness  of  Me,"  (1526).  The  second  century 
was  convinced,  therefore,  not  only  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  in 
peculiar  association  with  God  the  Father  and  Christ ;  but  that 
Christ  had  promised  the  Spirit's  coming  in  more  abundant 
measure  in  the  future. 

It  was  this  thought  of  the  special  dispensation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  combined  with  a  fresh  outburst  of  the  early  prophetic 
enthusiasm,  and  a  belief  that  the  end  of  the  world-age  was 
close  at  hand,  that  were  represented  in  Montanism.  To  a 
considerable  extent  Montanism  was,  also,  a  reaction  from  the 
secular  tendencies  already  at  work  in  the  church.  Montanus, 
from  whom  the  movement  was  named,  was  of  Ardabau,  near 
the  region  of  Asia  Minor  known  as  Phrygia — long  noted  for 
its  ecstatic  type  of  religion.4  A  tradition,  recorded  by  Jerome, 
affirmed  that,  before  conversion,  he  had  been  a  priest  of  Cy- 
bele.  About  156  Montanus  proclaimed  himself  the  passive 
instrument  through  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  spoke.  In  this  new 
revelation  Montanus  declared  the  promise  of  Christ  fulfilled, 
and  the  dispensation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  begun.  To  him  were 
soon  joined  two  prophetesses,  Prisca  and  Maximilla.  They 
now  affirmed,  as  mouthpieces  of  the  Spirit,  that  the  end  of  the 
world  was  at  hand,  and  that  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  was  about 
to  be  established  in  Phrygia,  whither  believers  should  betake 
themselves.  In  preparation  for  the  fast-approaching  consum 
mation  the  most  strenuous  asceticism  should  be  practised, 
celibacy,  fastings,  and  abstinence  from  meat.  This  vigorous 
attitude  won  response  as  a  protest  against  the  growing  worldli- 
ness  of  the  church  at  large,  and  to  many  was  the  most  attractive 
feature  of  Montanism. 

1  Matt.  2819.         2  Acts  238.       3  E.  g.,  1  Clem.  46,  58 ;  Ignatius,  Eph.,  9. 
4  See  selections,  Ayer,  pp.  106-109. 


MONTANISM  59 

The  movement  speedily  attained  considerable  proportions. 
By  the  bishops  of  Asia  Minor,  who  felt  their  authority  threat 
ened,  one  or  more  synods  were  held  soon  after  160,  which  have 
the  distinction  of  being  the  earliest  synods  of  church  history,  and 
in  which  Montanism  was  condemned.  Its  progress  was  not 
easily  checkefl,  even  by  the  death  of  the  last  of  its  original 
prophets,  Maximilla,  in  179.  Soon  after  17Q  it  was  represented 
in  Rome,  and  for  years  the  Roman  church  was  more  or  less 
turmoiled  by  it.  In  Carthage  it  won  Tertullian,  about  207, 
attracted  chiefly  by  its  ascetic  demands,  who  thenceforth  was 
the  most  eminent  Montanist.  Though  gradually  driven  out 
of  the  dominant  church,  Montanism  continued  to  be  represented 
in  the  Orient  till  long  after  the  acceptance  of  Christianity  by 
the  imperial  government.  In  Carthage  the  followers  of  Ter 
tullian  persisted  till  the  time  of  Augustine.  In  its  ascetic  de 
mands  Montanism  represented  a  wide-spread  tendency,  and  an 
asceticism  as  strict  as  anything  Montanism  taught  was  later  to 
find  a  place  in  the  great  church  in  monasticism. 

SECTION   IV.      THE   CATHOLIC   CHURCH 

Neither  Gnosticism  nor  Montanism,  though  extremely  peril 
ous,  were  ever  embraced  by  a  majority  of  Christians.  The 
large  church  remained  faithful  to  historic  Christianity.  By 
the  latter  third  of  the  second  century  it  was  calling  itself  the 
"  CatHoTic^ChurcEI  The  word  "Catholic"  is  first  used  of 
the  church  by  Ignatius,1  who  employed  it  in  the  wholly  un- 
technical  sense  of  "universal."  It  is  next  to  be  found  in  the 
letter  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  describing  the  martyrdom  of 
Polycarp  (156),  where  it  is  difficult  to  decide  whether  the  use 
is  technical  or  not.  Its  employment  as  a  technically  descrip 
tive  adjective  gradually  became  common,  so  that  the  strongly 
consolidated  church  that  came  out  of  the  Gnostic  and  Mon 
tanist  crises  is  now  usually  described  as  the  "Old  Catholic." 
This  Old  Catholic  Church  developed  its  distinguishing  char 
acteristics  between  160  and  190.  The  hitherto  relatively  in 
dependent  congregations  were  now  knit  into  an  effective  union. 
The  power  of  the  bishops  was  greatly  strengthened,  a  collection 
of  authoritative  New  Testament  Scripture  recognized,  and  a 
creed  formulated.  Comparatively  loosely  organized  Christianity 

1  Smyrn.,  8 ;  Ayer,  p.  42. 


60  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH 

now  became  a  rigid  corporate  body,  having  recognized  official 
leaders  and  capable  not  merely  of  defining  its  faith,  but  of 
shutting  out  from  its  communion  all  who  did  not  accept  its 
creed  or  its  officers.  As  a  recent  German  writer  has  epitomized 
the  change  :  "  About  50,  he  was  of  the  church  who  had  received 
baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit  and  called  Jesus,  Lord  ;  about  180, 
he  who  acknowledged  the  rule  of  faith  (creed),  the  New  Testa 
ment  canon,  and  the  authority  of  the  bishops."1 

In  a  measure,  the  beginnings  of  this  great  change  may  be 
seen  before  the  Gnostic  and  Montanist  crises ;  but  it  was  those 
struggles  that  brought  it  effectively  into  being.  The  character 
istic  answer  of  the  Catholic  Church  to  the  Gnostics  may  be  seen 
in  the  argument  of  Irenseus  of  Lyons.2  Against  Gnostic  claims 
Irenseus,  writing  about  185,  held  that  the  Apostles  did  not 
preach  before  they  had  "perfect  knowledge"  of  the  Gospel. 
That  preaching  they  recorded  in  the  Gospels — Matthew  and 
John,  were  written  by  Apostles  themselves;  while  Mark  re 
produced  the  message  of  Peter  and  Luke  that  of  Paul.  Nothing 
Gnostic,  Irenseus  declares,  is  found  in  any  of  them.  But  the 
Gnostic  may  object  that,  besides  this  public  apostolic  teaching 
in  the  Gospels,  there  was  a  viva  wee  instruction,  a  speaking 
"wisdom  among  the  perfect,"  3  of  which  Gnosticism  was  the 
heir.  This  Irenseus  denied.  He  argued  that,  had  there  been 
such  private  teaching,  the  Apostles  would  have  intrusted  it 
to  those,  above  all  others,  whom  they  selected  as  their  suc 
cessors  in  the  government  of  the  churches.  In  these  churches 
of  apostolic  foundation  the  apostolic  teaching  had  been  fully 
preserved,  and  its  transmission  had  been  guaranteed  by  the 
orderly  succession  of  their  bishops.  Go  therefore  to  Rome, 
or  to  Smyrna,  or  Ephesus,  and  learn  what  is  there  taught,  and 
nothing  Gnostic  will  be  found.  Every  church  must  agree 
with  that  of  Rome,  for  there  apostolical  tradition  has  been 
faithfully  preserved  as  in  other  Apostolic  Churches. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  what  more  effective  argument  Irenseus 
could  have  advanced  in  the  peculiar  situation  which  con 
fronted  him ;  but  it  was  an  answer  which  greatly  increased  the 
significance  of  the  churches  of  real  or  reputed  apostolical 
foundation,  and  of  their  heads,  the  bishops.  Irenseus  went 
further.  The  church  itself  is  the  depository  of  Christian  teach- 

1  Heussi,  Kompendium  der  Kirchengeschichte,  p.  44. 

2  Heresies,  3:1-4;  Ayer,  pp.  112-114.  3 1  Cor.  2«. 


APOSTOLICAL  TRADITION  AND  CREED        61 

ing:  "Since  the  Apostles,  like  a  rich  man  in  a  bank,  lodged  in 
her  hands  most  copiously  all  things  pertaining  to  the  truth." 
This  deposit  is  especially  intrusted  to  "  those  who,  together  with 
the  succession  of  the  episcopate,  have  received  the  certain  gift 
of  truth,"2  i.e.  to  the  heads  of  the  churches.  To  agree  with 
the  bishops  is  therefore  a  necessity.  This  argument  was  not 
peculiar  to  Irenaeus,  it  was  that  of  the  leaders  of  Old  Catholic 
teaching  generally. 

While  the  power  of  the  episcopate  and  the  significance  of 
churches  of  apostolical  foundation  was  thus  greatly  enhanced, 
/the  Gnostic  crisis  saw  a  corresponding  development  of  creed, 
^  at  least  in  the  West.  Some  form  of  instruction  before  baptism 
was  common  by  the  middle  of  the  second  century.3  At  Rome 
this  developed,  apparently,  between  150  and  175,  and  probably 
in  opposition  to  Marcionite  Gnosticism,  into  an  explication  of 
the  baptismal  formula  of  Matt.  2819 — the  earliest  known  form 
of  the  so-called  Apostles'  Creed.  What  antecedents  in  Asia 
Minor,  if  any,  it  may  have  had  is  still  a  question  in  scholarly 
dispute.  Without  symbolic  authority  in  the  Orient,  all  the 
Western  churches  received  this  creed  from  Rome,  and  it  was 
regarded,  by  the  time  of  Tertullian  at  least,  as  having  apostolic 
authority,  that  is  as  a  summary  of  apostolic  teaching.4  In  its 
original  form  it  read : 

"  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty ;  and  in  Christ  Jesus, 
His  only  begotten  Son,  our  Lord,  who  was  born  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  the  Virgin  Mary,  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate  and 
buried ;  the  third  day  He  rose  from  the  dead,  ascended  into  the 
heavens,  being  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  whence 
He  shall  come  to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead  ;  and  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,  holy  church,  forgiveness  of  sins,  resurrection  of  the 
flesh." 

sj  The  development  of  a  canon  of  New  Testament  books  was, 
also,  the  work  of  this  period.  By  the  church  from  the  begin 
ning  the  Old  Testament  was  reckoned  as  Scripture.  The  Gos 
pels  and  the  letters  of  Pdujrwere  doubtless  highly  valued,  but 
they  did  not,  at  first,  ha^e  "Scriptural  authority.  Clement  of 
Rome  (93-97),  though  constantly  quoting  the  Old  Testament 
as  the  utterance  of  God,  was  very  free  in  his  use  of  the  words 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  nowhere  styled  them  divine. 

1  Heresies,  3  :  41.  2  7^.,  4 .  26*. 

8  Justin,  Apology,  61.  4  Prescription,  13,  36. 


62  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON 

The  earliest  designation  of  a  passage  from  the  Gospels  as 
"Scripture"  was  about  131,  by  the  so-called  Barnabas,1  and  of 
a  quotation  from  Paul  about  110-117,  by  Polycarp.2  By  the 
time  of  Justin  (153),  the  Gospels  were  read  in  the  services  in 
Rome,  together  with  the  Old  Testament  prophets.3  The  proc 
ess  by  which  the  New  Testament  writings  came  to  Scriptural 
authority  seems  to  have  been  one  of  analogy.  The  Old  Testa 
ment  was  everywhere  regarded  as  divinely  authoritative. 
Christians  could  think  no  less  of  their  own  fundamental  books. 
The  question  was  an  open  one,  however,  as  to  which  were  the 
canonical  writings.  Works  like  Hernias  and  Barnabas  were 
read  in  churches.  An  authoritative  list  was  desirable.  Mar- 
cion  had  prepared  such  a  canon  for  his  followers.  A  similar 
enumeration  was  gradually  formed,  probably  in  Rome,  by  the 
Catholic  party.  Apparently  the  Gospels  were  the  first  to  gain 
complete  recognition,  then  the  letters  of  Paul.  By  about  200, 
according  to  the  witness  of  the  Muratorian  fragment,  Western 
Christendom  had  a  New  Testament  canon  embracing  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  John,  Acts,  1  and  2  Corinthians,  Ephesians,  Phil- 
ippians,  Colossians,  Galatians,  1  and  2  Thessalonians,  Romans, 
Philemon,  Titus,  1  and  2  Timothy,  Jude,  1  and  2  John,  Revela 
tion,  and  the  so-called  Apocalypse  of  Peter.4  In  the  Orient  the 
development  of  a  canon  was  not  quite  so  rapid.  Certain  books, 
like  Hebrews  and  Revelation  were  disputed.  The  whole  process 
of  canonical  development  into  its  precise  present  form  was  not 
completed  in  the  West  till  400,  and  in  the  East  till  even  later. 
By  the  year  200  the  church  of  the  western  portion  of  the 
empire  had,  therefore,  an  authoritative  collection  of  New 
Testament  books,  in  the  main  like  our  own,  to  which  to  appeal. 
The  East  was  not  much  behind.  The  formation  of  the  canon 
was  essentially  a  process  of  selection  from  the  whole  mass  of 
Christian  literature,  made  originally  by  no  council,  but  by  the 
force  of  Christian  opinion — the  criterion  being  that  the  books 
accepted  were  believed  to  be  eitta^ie^work  of  an  Apostle 
or  of  the  immediate  disciple  of^fl  HStlej  and  thus  to  rep 
resent  apostolic  teaching. 

Thus  out  of  the  struggle  with  Gnosticism  and  Montanism 
came  the  Old  Catholic  Church,  with  itsferong  episcopal  organ- 
V  ization^redal  standard,  and  Authoritative  canon.     It  differed 

1  Barn.,  4.  2  Phil.  12. 

8  Apology,  66,  67.  4Ayer,  pp.  117-120. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  ROME  63 

much  from  the  Apostolic  Church;  but  it  had  preserved  historic 
Christianity  and  carried  it  through  a  tremendous  crisis.  It 
may  be  doubted  whether  a  less  rigid  organization  than  that 
developed  in  this  momentous  second  half  of  the  second  cen 
tury  could  have  achieved  as  much. 


SECTION  V.      THE   GROWING   IMPORTANCE  OF  ROME 

The  Roman  Church  had  been  of  prominence  since  the  time 
of  Paul.  To  it  that  Apostle  wrote  his  most  noteworthy  letter. 
At  Rome  Paul,  and  probably  Peter,  died.  The  church  endured 
the  severest  of  early  persecutions  under  Nero,  and  survived  in 
vigor.  Situated  in  the  capital  of  the  empire,  it  early  devel 
oped  a  consciousness  of  strength  and  authority,  which  was 
doubtless  increased  by  the  fact  that,  by  100,  it  was,  it  would 
appear,  the  largest  single  congregation  in  Christendom.  Even 
before  the  close  of  the  first  century  Clement,  writing  anony 
mously  to  the  Corinthians  in  the  name  of  the  whole  Roman 
congregation  (93-97),  spoke  as  for  those  who  expected  to  be 
obeyed.1  The  tone,  if  brotherly,  was  big-brotherly.  This 
influence  was  increased  by  the  well-known  generosity  of  the 
Roman  congregation.2  Ignatius  addressed  it  as  "having  the 
presidency  of  love."3  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  the 
second  Jewish  war  (135)  ended  any  possible  leadership  of  Chris 
tianity  that  might  there  have  been  asserted.  The  successful 
resistance  to  Gnosticism  and  Montanism  strengthened  it;  and 
it  reaped  in  abundance  the  fruits  of  that  struggle.  There  the 
creed  was  formulated,  there  the  canon  formed.  Above  all,  it 
was  advantaged  by  the  appeal  of  the  opponents  of  Gnosticism 
to  the  tradition  of  the  Apostolic  churches,  for  Rome  was  the 
only  church  in  the  western  half  of  the  empire  with  which 
Apostles  had  had  anything  to  do.  Irenseus  of  Lyons,  writing 
about  185,  represented  the  general  Western  feeling  of  his  time, 
when  he  not  only  pictures  the  Roman  Church  as  founded  by 
Peter  and  Paul,  but  de^|^| "  it  is  a  matter  of  necessity  that 
every  church  should  afl|^rith  this  church."  4  It  wa,s  Wd- 
ership  in_jhe  jireservatftrTof^  the  apostolic  faith r  not  jndirial 
supremacy,  that  Irenseus  had  in  mind ;  but  with  such  estimates 

1 1  Clem.,  59,  63. 

2  Eusebius,  Church  History,  4  :  2310 ;  Ayer,  p.  24. 

9  Romans,  *  Heresies,  3 :  32 ;  Ayer,  p.  113. 


64  THE  EASTER  CONTROVERSY 

wide-spread,  the  door  was  open  for  a  larger  assertion  of  Roman 
authority.  Rather  late  in  developing  the  monarchical  episco 
pate,  since  Anicetus  (154-165)  seems  to  have  been  the  first 
single  head  of  the  Roman  Church,  the  prominence  of  its  bishop 
grew  rapidly  in  the  Gnostic  struggle,  and  with  this  growth 
\J  came  the  first  extensive  assertion  of  the  authority  of  the  Roman 
bishop  in  the  affairs  of  the  church  at  large. 

While  Rome  was  thus  gaining  in  strength  Asia  Minor  was 
relatively  declining.  At  the  beginning  of  the  second  century 
Asia  Minor  and  the  adjacent  portion  of  Syria  had  been  the 
most  extensively  Christianized  sections  of  the  empire.  That 
was  probably,  also,  true  at  the  century's  close.  Ephesus  and 
Antioch  had  been,  and  were  still,  great  Christian  centres. 
Asia  Minor  had  resisted  Gnosticism,  but  it  had  been  torn  by 
Montanism  and  other  sources  of  controversy,  though  the  Mon- 
tanists  had  been  rejected.  There  is  reason  to  think,  however, 
that  these  disputes  had  borne  hard  on  the  united  strength  of 
its  Christianity.  The  quarrel  between  Asia  Minor  and  Rome 
arose  over  the  time  of  the  observance  of  Easter.  While  there 
is  reason  to  suppose  that  Easter  had  been  honored  from  early 
in  Christian  history,  the  first  definite  record  of  its  celebration 
is  in  connection  with  a  visit  of  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna, 
to  Anicetus,  bishop  of  Rome,  in  154  or  155.  At  that  time  the 
practice  of  Asia  Minor,  probably  the  more  ancient,  was  to  ob 
serve  Easter  with  the  Lord's  Supper  on  the  evening  of  the 
fourteenth  of  the  month  Nisan,  like  the  Jewish  Passover,  re 
gardless  of  the  day  of  the  week  on  which  it  might  fall.  The 
Roman  custom,  and  that  of  some  parts  of  the  East,  was  to  hold 
the  Easter  feast  always  on  Sunday.  The  question  was,  there 
fore,  should  the  day  of  the  week  or  that  of  the  month  be  the 
norm.  Polycarp  and  Anicetus  could  not  agree,  but  parted 
with  mutual  good-will,  each  adhering  to  his  own  practice.1 
The  problem  was  further  complicated  by  a  dispute,  about  167, 
in  Laodicea,  in  Asia  Minor  itself,  as  to  the  nature  of  the  cele 
bration  on  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan,  some  holding  that  Christ 
died  on  the  fourteenth,  as  the  fourth  Gospel  intimates,  and 
others  placing  His  death,  as  do  the  other  Gospels,  on  the  fif 
teenth.  The  latter  treated  the  commemoration  of  the  four 
teenth  of  Nisan,  therefore,  as  a  Christian  continuation  of  the 
Hebrew  Passover. 

1  Eusebius,  Church  History,  5  :  2416- 17 ;  Ayer,  p.  164. 


THE  EASTER  CONTROVERSY  65 

About  190  the  problem  became  so  acute  that  synods  were 
held  in  Rome,  Palestine,  and  elsewhere  which  decided  in  favor 
of  the  Roman  practice.  The  churches  of  Asia  Minor,  led  by 
Polycrates,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  refused  conformity.  There 
upon  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome  (189-198),  excommunicated  the 
recalcitrant  congregations.  This  high-handed  action  met  with 
much  protest,  notably  from  Irenseus  of  Lyons,  but  it  was  a 
marked  assertion  of  Roman  authority.1 

These  embittered  controversies  were  costly  to  Asia  Minor, 
and  any  possible  rivalry  on  equal  terms  of  Ephesus  and  Rome 
was  out  of  the  question.  The  collapse  of  Jewish  Christian 
leadership,  the  apparent  lack  at  Antioch  of  men  of  eminence 
in  the  second  century,  and  the  decline  of  the  influence  of  Asia 
Minor  left  Rome,  by  200,  the  most  eminent  and  influential 
centre  of  Christianity — a  position  of  which  the  Roman  bishops 
had  the  will  and  the  ability  to  make  full  use.  The  rise  of 
Alexandria  and  of  Carthage  to  importance  in  the  Christian 
thought  and  life  of  the  third  century  could  not  rob  Rome  of 
its  leadership.  Their  attainment  of  Christian  significance  was 
far  younger  than  that  of  the  capital  of  the  empire. 

SECTION  VI.      IREN^US 

The  earliest  theological  leader  of  distinction  in  the  rising 
Old  Catholic  Church  was  Irenseus.  His  argument  in  defense 
of  traditional  Christianity  against  Gnosticism  has  already  been 
outlined.2  Born  in  Asia  Minor,  he  was  brought  up  in  Smyrna, 
where  he  saw  and  heard  Polycarp.  The  date  of  his  birth  has 
been  most  variously  placed  by  modern  scholars  from  about 
115  to  about  142,  chiefly  in  the  light  of  its  possible  bearing  on 
traditions  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  The 
later  part  of  the  period  indicated  has  more  probability  than  the 
earlier.  From  Asia  Minor  he  removed  to  Lyons  in  what  is 
now  France,  where  he  became  a  presbyter.  The  great  perse 
cution  of  177,  at  Lyons,  found  him,  fortunately,  on  an  honor 
able  mission  to  Rome;  and,  on  his  return,  he  was  chosen 
bishop  of  Lyons,  in  succession  to  the  martyred  Pothinus. 
That  post  he  continued  to  hold  till  his  death  (c.  200).  Not  far 
from  185  he  wrote  his  chief  work,  Against  Heresies,  primarily 

1  Eusebius,  Church  History,  5  : 23,  24 ;  Ayer,  pp.  161-165. 

2  Ante,  p.  60. 


66  IREN^EUS 

to  refute  the  various  Gnostic  schools,  but  incidentally  reveal 
ing  his  own  theology. 

Brought  up  in  the  tradition  of  Asia  Minor  and  spending  his 
later  life  in  Gaul,  Irenseus  was  a  connecting-link  not  merely 
between  distant  portions  of  the  empire,  but  between  the  older 
theology  of  the  Johannine  and  Ignatian  literature  and  the 
newer 'presentations  which  the  Apologists  and  the  "Catholic'' 
movement  of  his  own  day  were  introducing.  A  man  of  deeply 
religious  spirit,  his  interest  was  in  salvation.  In  its  explica 
tion  he  developed  the  Pauline  and  Ignatian  conceptions  of 
Christ  as  the  new  man,  the  renewer  of  humanity,  the  second 
Adam.  God  created  the  first  Adam,  He  made  him  good  and 
immortal;  but  both  goodness  and  immortality  were  lost  by 
Adam's  disobedience.  What  man  lost  in  Adam  is  restored  in 
Christ,  the  incarnate  Logos,  who  now  completes  the  interrupted 
work.  "  I  have  shown  that  the  Son  of  God  did  not  then  begin 
to  exist  [i.  e.  at  Jesus'  birth],  being  with  the  Father  from  the 
beginning;  but  when  He  became  incarnate  and  was  made 
man,  He  commenced  afresh  the  long  line  of  human  beings,  and 
furnished  us,  in  a  brief,  comprehensive  manner,  with  salvation ; 
so  that  what  we  had  lost  in  Adam — namely  to  be  according  to 
the  image  and  likeness  of  God — that  we  might  recover  in  Christ 
Jesus."  l  The  work  of  Christ,  thus  described,  Irenseus  char 
acterizes  in  a  noble  phrase.  We  follow  "the  only  true  and 
steadfast  Teacher,  the  Word  of  God,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
did  through  His  transcendent  love  become  what  we  are,  that 
He  might  bring  us  to  be  even  what  He  is  Himself."  2  Christ 
is  also  the  full  revelation  of  God.3  Our  union  with  Him,  fol 
lowing  the  teaching  of  Asia  Minor  and  of  Justin,  Irenseus  views 
as  in  some  sense  physical,  through  the  Supper.4  Irenseus's 
theory  of  Christ's  new  headship  of  humanity  had  added  to  it 
a  suggestion  of  His  mother  as  the  second  Eve.  "The  knot 
of  Eve's  disobedience  was  loosened  by  the  obedience  of  Mary. 
For  what  the  Virgin  Eve  had  bound  fast  through  unbelief, 
this  did  the  Virgin  Mary  set  free  through  faith."  5  In  this 
curious  ascription  is  one  of  the  earliest  evidences  of  that  exalta 
tion  of  the  Virgin  which  was  to  play  so  large  a  part  in  Christian 
history.  In  some  ways,  even  for  his  time,  Irenseus  was  an 
old-fashioned  man.  The  belief  in  Christ's  speedy  second  com- 

1  Heresies,  3 : 181 ;  Ayer,  pp.  137,  138.  2  Heresies,  5 ;  Preface. 

3  Ibid.,  4 : 207.     4  Ibid.,  4 : 185 ;  Ayer,  p.  138.    5  Ibid.,  3 : 224. 


TERTULLIAN'S  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS          67 

ing  had  been  growing  faint,  and  the  contest  with  Montanism 
was  to  extinguish  it  almost  entirely  With  Irenseus  it  still 
burned  brightly,  and  he  looked  eagerly  for  the  time  when  the 
earth  would  be  marvellously  renewed.1  For  Irenseus  the  New 
Testament  is  as  fully  sacred  Scripture  as  the  Old. 
1 

SECTION  VII.      TERTULLIAN  AND  CYPRIAN 

Tertullian  was  one  of  the  most  individual  and  remarkable 
personalities  of  the  ancient  church.  Born  (c.  150-155)  of 
well-to-do  heathen  parentage  in  Carthage,  he  studied  law  and 
practised  his  profession  in  Rome.  He  was  exceedingly  well 
read  in  philosophy  and  history.  Greek  he  had  thoroughly 
mastered.  About  190  to  195,  he  was  converted  to  Christianity, 
probably  in  Rome,  and  now  devoted  himself  with  equal  eager 
ness  to  the  study  of  Christian  literature,  orthodox  and  heretical. 
Shortly  after  he  returned  to  Carthage  where  he  became  a 
presbyter,  and  remained  till  his  death  (c.  222-225).  At  first 
in  fellowship  with  the  Roman  Church,  a  wave  of  persecution 
that  broke  over  North  Africa  in  202  under  the  Emperor  Sep- 
timius  Severus  (193-211),  strengthened  his  native  Puritanism 
and  brought  him  into  sympathy  with  Montanism.  Its  ascetic 
and  unworldly  aspects  most  appealed  to  him.  About  207  he 
broke  with  the  "Catholic"  Church,  which  he  thenceforth  bit 
terly  criticised,  and  died  in  continuing  protest,  apparently,  as 
the  founder  of  a  little  sect  of  his  own- 
In  197  Tertullian  began  a  career  of  literary  activity  in  de 
fense  and  explication  of  Christianity  which  lasted  till  220. 
He  was  the  first  ecclesiastical  writer  of  prominence  to  use  Latin. 
Even  the  leaders  of  the  Roman  Church  wrote  in  Greek  till 
after  his  time.  His  style  was  vivid,  satirical,  readable.  His- 
method  was  often  that  of  an  advocate  in  the  court-room.  He 
was  frequently  unfair  to  opponents.  He  was  not  always  con 
sistent  with  himself.  But  he  was  of  a  fiery  earnestness  of  spirit 
that  makes  what  he  wrote  always  impressive.  He  well  deserves 
the  title  of  father  of  Latin  theology. 

Tertullian  was,  primarily,  no  speculative  theologian.  His 
own  thought  was  based  on  that  of  the  Apologists,  Irenseus,  and 
to  some  extent  on  other  bearers  of  the  tradition  of  Asia  Minor, 
and  quite  as  much  on  Stoic  teaching  and  legal  conceptions. 

*.,  5: 33';  Ayer,  p.  26. 


68  TERTULLIAN'S  THEOLOGY 

He  had  the  Roman  sense  of  order  and  authority.  All  that  he 
touched,  however,  he  formulated  with  the  clearness  of  defini 
tion  of  a  trained  judicial  mind,  and  hence  he  gave  precision, 
as  none  had  before  him,  to  many  theological  conceptions  that 
had  heretofore  been  vaguely  apprehended. 

For  Tertullian  Christianity  was  a  great  divine  foolishness, 
wiser  than  the  highest  philosophical  wisdom  of  men,  and  in 
no  way  to  be  squared  with  existing  philosophical  systems.1 
In  reality  he  looked  upon  it  largely  through  Stoic  spectacles. 
Christianity  is  primarily  knowledge  of  God.  It  is  based  on 
reason — "the  soul  by  nature  Christian"  2 — and  authority. 
That  authority  is  seated  in  the  church,  and  only  in  the  ortho 
dox  church,  which  alone  has  the  truth,  expressed  in  the  creed, 
and  alone  has  a  right  to  use  the  Scriptures.3  As  with  Irenseus, 
these  valid  churches  are  those  that  agree  in  faith  with  those 
founded  by  the  Apostles,  wherein  the  apostolic  tradition  has 
been  maintained  by  the  succession  of  bishops.4  These  are 
utterances  of  the  still  "Catholic"  Tertullian.  As  with  Justin 
and  common  Gentile  Christianity  of  the  second  century, 
Christianity  for  Tertullian  is  a  new  law.  "Jesus  Christ  .  .  . 
preached  the  new  law  and  the  new  promises  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."5  Admission  to  the  church  is  by  baptism,  by  which 
previous  sins  are  removed.  It  is  "our  sacrament  of  water,  in 
that  by  washing  away  the  sins  of  our  early  blindness  we  are  set 
free  into  eternal  life." 6  Those  who  have  received  it  are  thence 
forth  "competitors  for  salvation  in  earning  the  favor  of  God."7 
Tertullian  had  a  deeper  sense  of  sin  than  any  Christian 
writer  since  Paul,  and  his  teachings  greatly  aided  the  develop- 
,/ment  of  the  Latin  conceptions  of  sin  and  grace.  Though  not 
clearly  worked  out,  and  inconsistent  with  occasional  expres 
sions,  Tertullian  possessed  a  doctrine  of  original  sin.  "There 
is,  then,  besides  the  evil  which  supervenes  on  the  soul  from  the 
intervention  of  the  evil  spirit,  an  antecedent,  and  in  a  certain 
sense  natural  evil,  which  arises  from  its  corrupt  origin."  8  But 
"the  power  of  the  grace  of  God  is  more  potent  indeed  than 
nature."  9  The  nature  of  grace  he  nowhere  fully  explains. 
It  evidently  included,  however,  not  only  "forgiveness  of  sins,"  10 

1  Prescription,  7.  2  Apology,  17.  3  Prescription,  13-19. 

4  Ibid.,  32.  5Ibid.,  13.  6  Baptism,  1. 

7  Repentance,  6.  8  Anima,  41.  9  Ibid.,  21. 
10  Baptism,  10. 


TERTULLIAN'S  CHRISTOLOGY  69 

but  also  "the  grace  of  divine  inspiration/'  by  which  power  to 
do  right  is  infused  to  give  force  to  man's  feeble,  but  free,  will.1 
Loofs  has  shown  that  this  latter  conception,  of  the  utmost 
significance  for  the  theology  of  Western  Christendom,  is  of 
Stoic  origin.2  But  though  salvation  is  thus  based  on  grace, 
man  has  much  to  do.  Though  God  forgives  previous  sins  at 
baptism,  satisfaction  must  be  made  for  those  committed  there 
after  by  voluntary  sacrifices,  chiefly  ascetic.  The  more  a  man 
punishes  himself,  the  less  God  will  punish  him.3 

Tertullian's  most  influential  work  was  the  definition  of  the 
Logos  Christology,  though  he  preferred  to  use  the  designa 
tion  Son  rather  than  Logos.  If  he  advanced  its  content  lit 
tle  beyond  what  had  already  been  presented  by  the  theolo 
gians  of  Asia  Minor,  and  especially  by  the  Apologists,  his  legal 
mind  gave  a  clearness  to  its  explanation  such  as  had  not  be 
fore  existed.  Here  his  chief  work  was  one  written  in  his  Mon- 
tanist  period — Against  Praxeas.  He  defines  the  Godhead  in 
terms  which  almost  anticipate  the  Nicene  result  of  more  than 
a  century  later.  "All  are  of  one,  by  unity  of  substance; 
while  the  mystery  of  the  dispensation  is  still  guarded  which 
distributes  the  unity  into  a  Trinity,  placing  in  their  order 
the  three,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit;  three, 
however  .  .  .  not  in  substance  but  in  form ;  not  in  power 
but  in  appearance,  for  they  are  of  one  substance  and  one 
essence  and  one  power,  inasmuch  as  He  is  one  God  from 
whom  these  degrees  and  forms  and  aspects  are  reckoned  un 
der  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit."4  He  describes  these  distinctions  of  the  Godhead  as 
"persons,"5  meaning  by  the  word  not  our  usage  in  the  sense 
of  personalities,  but  forms  of  manifestation.  This  unity  of 
^ubstance  in  Tertullian's  thought  is  material,  for  he  was  suffi 
ciently  a  Stoic  to  hold  that  "  God  is  a  body  ...  for  spirit  has 
a  bodily  substance  of  its  own  kind."  6  With  a  similar  precision, 
Tertullian  distinguished  between  the  human  and  divine  in 
Christ.  "We  see  His  double  state,  not  intermixed  but  con 
joined  in  one  person,  Jesus,  God  and  man." 7  Since  both  Son 
and  Spirit  are  derived  from  the  Father  by  emanation,  both  are 

1  Patience,  1. 

2  Leitfaden  zum  Studium  der  Dogrnengeschichte,  p.  164. 

3  Repentance,  2,  9.  *  Praxeas,  2.  5  Ibid.,  12. 
6  Ibid.,  7.                                      '  Ibid.,  27. 


70      CYPRIAN'S  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH 

subordinate  to  Him.1  This  doctrine  of  subordination,  already 
taught  in  the  Apologists,  was  to  remain  characteristic  of  the 
Logos  Christology  till  the  time  of  Augustine.  These  definitions 
were  far  more  the  work  of  a  lawyer-like,  judicial  interpreta 
tion,  than  of  philosophical  consideration.  As  the  first,  also, 
to  give  technical  usage  to  such  expressions  as  trinitas,  sub- 
stantia,  sacramentwn,  satisfacere,  meritum,  Tertullian  left  his 
permanent  impress  on  Latin  theology. 

Cyprian  was,  in  many  ways,  the  intellectual  heir  of  Tertul 
lian,  whom  he  called  master.  Born  probably  in  Carthage, 
about  200,  he  spent  all  his  life  in  that  city.  A  man  of  wealth 
and  education,  he  won  distinction  as  a  teacher  of  rhetoric. 
About  246  he  was  converted  to  the  Christian  faith,  and  two  or 
three  years  later  was  chosen  to  the  bishopric  of  Carthage. 
Here  he  showed  high  executive  ability,  and  much  practical  good 
sense  and  kindliness  of  spirit  without  the  touch  of  genius  that 
characterized  Tertullian.  The  persecution  of  250  he  escaped 
by  flight ;  but  in  that  of  258  he  stood  boldly  forth  and  suffered 
as  a  martyr  by  beheading.  Few  leaders  of  the  ancient  church 
have  been  more  highly  regarded  by  subsequent  ages. 

In  Cyprian's  teaching  the  tendencies  illustrated  in  the  de 
velopment  of  the  "Catholic"  Church  received  their  full  expres 
sion.  The  church  is  the  one  visible  orthodox  community  of 
Christians.  "There  is  one  God,  and  Christ  is  one,  and  there 
is  one  church,  and  one  chair  (episcopate)  founded  upon  the 
rock  by  the  word  of  the  Lord."  2  "Whoever  he  may  be  and 
whatever  he  may  be,  he  who  is  not  in  the  church  of  Christ  is 
not  a  Christian."  3  "  He  can  no  longer  have  God  for  his  Father, 
who  has  not  the  church  for  his  mother."  4  "There  is  no  sal 
vation  out  of  the  church."  5  The  church  is  based  on  the  unity 
of  its  bishops,  "whence  ye  ought  to  know  that  the  bishop  is 
in  the  church  and  the  church  in  the  bishop ;  and  if  any  one  be 
not  with  the  bishop,  that  he  is  not  in  the  church."  6  "The 
episcopate  is  one,  each  part  of  which  is  held  by  each  one  in 
its  entirety."  7  This  last  quotation  has  its  bearing  on  a  con 
troversy  still  alive  as  to  whether  Cyprian  regarded  all  bishops 
as  equal  sharers  in  a  common  episcopal  authority,  the  posses 
sion  of  each  and  of  all ;  or  held  to  the  superiority  of  the  bishop 

1  Praxeas,  7,  9.  2  Letters,  39-435.  3  Ibid.,  51-5524. 

4  Unity  of  the  Church,  6.        5  Letters,  72-7321.  6  Ibid.,  G8-668. 

7  Unity  of  the  Church,  5 ;  Ayer,  p.  242. 


RENEWED  CHRISTOLOGICAL  DISCUSSIONS     71 

of  Rome.  He  certainly  quoted  Matt.  1618>  19.1  He  looked  upon 
Peter  as  the  typical  bishop.  He  referred  to  Rome  as  uthe  chief 
church  whence  priestly  unity  takes  its  source."  Rome  was  to 
him  evidently  the  highest  church  in  dignity ;  but  Cyprian  was 
not  ready  to  admit  a  judicial  authority  over  others  in  the  Roman 
bishop,  or  to  (regard  him  as  more  than  the  first  among  equals. 
Cyprian's  significance  as  a  witness  to  the  full  development  of 
the  doctrine  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  sacrifice  offered  by  the 
priest  to  God  will  be  considered  in  Section  XIV.  His  concep 
tion  of  the  Christian  life,  like  that  of  Tertullian,  was  ascetic. 
Martyrdom  is  bringing  forth  fruit  an  hundredfold ;  voluntary 
celibacy,  sixty  fold.3 

SECTION  VIII.      THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  LOGOS  CHRISTOLOGY 
IN  THE   WEST 

Though  the  "Catholic"  Church  was  combating  successfully 
the  Gnostics,  and  though  the  Logos  Christology  was  that  of 
such  formative  minds  as  those  of  the  writer  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  Justin,  Irenseus,  and  Tertullian,  that  Christology  was 
not  wholly  regarded  with  sympathy  by  the  rank  and  file  of 
believers.  Hermas  had  taught  an  adoptionist  Christology  at 
Rome  as  late  as  140.  The  Apostles'  Creed  has  no  reference  to 
any  Logos  doctrine.  Tertullian  says  significantly  of  his  own 
time  (213-218) :  "The  simple— I  will  not  call  them  unwise  or 
unlearned — who  always  constitute  the  majority  of  believers, 
are  startled  at  the  dispensation  of  the  three  in  one,  on  the 
ground  that  their  very  rule  of  faith  withdraws  them  from  the 
world's  plurality  of  gods  to  the  one  only  true  God."  4  It  was 
difficult  for  them  to  see  in  trinitarian  conceptions  aught  else 
but  an  assertion  of  tritheism.  The  last  decade  of  the  second 
and  the  first  two  of  the  third  centuries  were  an  important  epoch, 
therefore,  in  Christological  discussion,  especially  in  Rome, 
where  the  question  was  in  the  balance. 

To  some  extent  this  new  Christological  discussion  seems  to 
have  been  the  indirect  result  of  Montanism.  That  movement 
had  made  much  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  proclaiming  itself  the  in 
auguration  of  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit,  therein  promised. 
Some  opponents  of  Montanism  in  Asia  Minor,  in  their  reaction 

1 E.  g.,  Unity  of  the  Church,  4.  2  Letters,  54-5914. 

8  Ibid.,  76°.  «  Praxeas,  3. 


72  THE  DYNAMIC  MONARCHIANS 

from  its  teachings,  went  so  far  as  to  reject  the  fourth  Gospel 
and  its  doctrine  of  the  Logos.  Of  these  "Alogoi,"  as  Epiph- 
anius  (?-403),  writing  much  later,  nicknamed  them,  little  is 
known  in  detail,  but  some  of  the  critics  of  the  Logos  Christology 
who  now  came  into  prominence  were  apparently  influenced  by 
them.  To  these  opponents  in  general  the  name  Monarchians 
is  usually  given — a  title  coined  by  Tertullian1 — since  they  as 
serted  the  unity  of  God.  The  Monarchians  fell  into  two  very 
unlike  classes,  those  who  held  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God 
by  adoption,  the  so-called  Dynamic  Monarchians;  and  those 
who  held  that  Christ  was  but  a  temporary  form  of  manifesta 
tion  of  the  one  God,  the  party  known  as  the  Modalistic  Mo 
narchians.  Thus,  with  the  supporters  of  the  Logos  view,  three 
Christologies  were  contesting  in  Rome  at  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century. 

The  first  Dynamic  Monarchian  of  prominence  was  Theodotus, 
called  the  currier,  or  tanner,  from  Byzantium.  He  wa's  a  man  of 
learning,  and  is  said  to  have  been  a  disciple  of  the  Alogoi,  though, 
unlike  them,  he  accepted  in  some  sense  the  fourth  Gospel. 
About  190  he  came  to  Rome,  and  there  taught  that  Jesus  was 
a  man,  born  of  the  Virgin,  of  holy  life,  upon  whom  the  divine 
Christ  (or  the  Holy  Spirit)  descended  at  His  baptism.  Some 
of  Theodotus's  followers  denied  to  Jesus  any  title  to  divinity ; 
but  others  held  that  He  became  in  some  sense  divine  at  His 
resurrection.2  One  is  reminded  of  the  Christology  of  Hermas 
(Ante,  p.  39).  Theodotus  was  excommunicated  by  Bishop  Vic 
tor  of  Rome  (189-198) ;  but  his  work  there  was  continued  by 
Theodotus,  "the  money-changer,"  and  Asclepiodorus,  like  their 
master,  probably  from  the  Orient ;  but  their  effort  to  found  a 
rival  communion  outside  the  "Catholic"  Church  amounted  to 
little.  The  last  attempt  to  present  a  similar  theology  in  Rome 
was  that  of  a  certain  Artemon  (230-40-270),  but  Dynamic 
Monarchianism  in  the  West  was  already  moribund.  Yet  it 
undoubtedly  represented  a  type  of  Christology  that  was  one 
of  the  oldest  in  the  Christian  Church. 

The  Dynamic  Monarchian  party  was  stronger  and  more 
persistent  in  the  East.  There  it  had  its  most  famous  represen 
tative  in  Paul  of  Samosata,  the  able  and  politically  gifted 
bishop  of  Antioch  from  c.  260  to  272.  He  represented  the 

1  Praxeas,  3,  10. 

2  Hippolytus,  Refutation,  723,  1019;  Ayer,  p.  172. 


THE  MODALISTIC  MONARCHIANS  73 

Logos,  which  he  also  described  as  the  Son  of  God,  as  an  imper 
sonal  attribute  of  the  Father.  This  Logos  had  inspired  Moses 
and  the  prophets.  Jesus  was  a  man,  unique  in  that  He  was  born 
of  the  Virgin,  who  was  filled  with  the  power  of  God,  i.  e.,  by 
God's  Logos.  By  this  indwelling  inspiration  Jesus  was  united 
in  will  by  lovte  to  God,  but  did  not  become  in  substance  one 
with  God.  That  union  is  moral,  but  inseparable.  By  reason 
of  it  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead,  and  given  a  kind  of  dele 
gated  divinity.  Between  264  and  269  three  synods  considered 
Paul  of  Samosata's  views,  by  the  last  of  which  he  was  excom 
municated  ;  but  he  kept  his  place  till  driven  out  by  the  Em 
peror  Aurelian  (p.  106). 

Much  more  numerous  than  the  Dynamic  Monarchians  were 
the  Modalistic  Monarchians,  who  made  an  appeal  to  the  many 
for  the  reason  already  quoted  from  Tertullian  (ante,  p.  71),  that 
in  the  presence  of  heathen  polytheism,  the  unity  of  God  seemed 
a  prime  article  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  any  Logos  concep 
tion  or  Dynamic  Monarchianism  seemed  to  them  a  denial  of 
that  unity.  Cyprian  coined  for  these  Modalistic  Monarchians 
the  nickname  Patripassians.1  The  leader  of  Modalistic  Mo 
narchianism  was,  like  that  of  Dynamic  Monarchianism,  an 
Oriental  Christian,  Noetus,  probably  of  Smyrna.  The  same 
controversies  in  Asia  Minor  may  well  have  called  forth  both  in 
terpretations.  Of  N-oetus  little  is  known  save  that  he  taught 
in  his  native  region  in  the  period -180  to  200,  "that  Christ  was 
the  Father  Himself,  and  that  the  Father  Himself  was  born  and 
suffered  and  died."  These  views  were  transplanted  to  Rome, 
about  190,  by  a  certain  Praxeas,  a  follower  of  Noetus  and  an 
opponent  of  the  Montanists,  regarding  whom  Tertullian,  then 
a  Montanist  and  always  a  defender  of  the  Logos  Christology, 
said  :  "  Praxeas  did  two  works  of  the  devil  in  Rome.  He  drove 
out  prophecy  and  introduced  heresy.  He  put  to  flight  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  crucified  the  Father."  3  A  little  later  two  other 
disciples  of  Noetus,  Epigonus  and  Cleomenes,  came  to  Rome 
and  won,  in  large  measure,  the  sympathy  of  Bishop  Zephyrinus 
(198-217)  for  the  Modalistic  Monarchian  position. 

The  most  noted  leader  of  the  Modalistic  school,  whose  name 
became  permanently  associated  with  this  Christology,  was  Sa- 

1  Letters,  72-7S4. 

2  Hippolytus,  Against  Noetus,  1 ;  Ay  or,  p.  177. 

3  Praxeas,  1 ;  Ayer,  p.  179. 


74  SABELLIUS  AND  HIPPOLYTUS 

bellius,  of  whose  early  life  little  is  known,  but  who  was  teaching 
in  Rome  about  215.  His  theology  was  essentially  that  of  Noe- 
tus,  but  much  more  carefully  wrought  out,  especially  in  that 
it  gave  a  definite  place  to  the  Holy  Spirit  as  well  as  to  the 
Son.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are  all  one  and  the  same. 
Each  is  a  prosopon — TrpdswTrov — (a  word  of  large  later  ortho 
dox  use),  that  is  a  character  or  form  of  manifestation,  of  the 
one  God,  who  showed  Himself  in  His  character  of  creator  as 
the  Father,  in  that  of  redeemer  as  the  Son,  and  now  as  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Sabellius,  though  soon  excommunicated  at  Rome, 
found  large  following  for  his  views  in  the  East,  especially  in 
Egypt  and  Libya.  Nor  was  he  without  considerable  influence 
on  the  development  of  what  became  the  orthodox  Christology. 
His  absolute  identification  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  was 
rejected;  but  it  implied  an  equality  which  ultimately,  as  in 
Augustine,  triumphed  over  the  subordination  of  Son  and  Spirit 
characteristic  of  the  Logos  Christology  both  of  Tertullian  and 
Athanasius. 

The  great  advocate  of  the  Logos  Christology  at  this  juncture 
in  Rome  was  Hippolytus  (160-170 — c.  235),  the  most  learned 
Christian  writer  then  in  the  city,  and  the  last  considerable 
theologian  there  to  use  Greek  rather  than  Latin  as  his  vehicle 
of  expression.  As  a  commentator,  chronicler,  calculator  of 
Easter  dates,  Apologist,  and  opponent  of  heretics,  he  was  held 
in  such  high  repute  that  his  followers  erected  after  his  death 
the  earliest  Christian  portrait  statue  known.  He  opposed 
vigorously  the  Monarchians  of  both  schools.  The  fight  in 
Rome  waxed  hot.  Bishop  Zephyrinus  (198-217)  hardly  knew 
what  to  do,  though  he  leaned  toward  the  Monarchian  side. 
On  his  death  he  was  succeeded  by  Kallistos  (Calixtus,  217-222), 
the  most  energetic  and  assertive  bishop  that  Rome  had  yet 
seen — a  man  who  had  been  born  a  slave,  had  engaged  unsuc 
cessfully  in  banking,  and  had,  for  a  time,  been  a  sufferer  for  his 
Christian  faith  in  the  mines  of  Sardinia.  Over  Zephyrinus  he 
acquired  great  influence,  and  on  his  own  attainment  of  the 
bishopric,  issued  in  his  own  name  certain  regulations  as  to  the 
readmission  to  the  church  of  those  repentant  of  sins  of  licen 
tiousness,  which  show  higher  ecclesiastical  claims  than  any  here 
tofore  advanced  by  a  Roman  bishop  (see  p.  101).  Kallistos  saw 
that  these  disputes  were  hurting  the  Roman  Church.  He  there 
fore  excommunicated  Sabellius  (c.  217),  and  charged  Hippolytus 


VICTORY  OF  THE  LOGOS  CHRISTOLOGY      75 

with  being  a  worshipper  of  two  g<  ds.1  Hippolytus  now  broke 
with  Kallistos,  on  this  ground  and  on  questions  regarding  dis 
cipline,  and  became  the  head  of  a  rival  communion  in  Rome 
—the  first  "counter-pope" — a  position  which  he  maintained 
till  his  banishment  in  the  persecution  of  235. 

Kallistos  tried  to  find  a  compromise  formula  in  this  Chris- 
tological  confusion.  Father,  Son  and  Logos,  he  held,  are  all 
names ;of  "one  indivisible  spirit."  Yet  Son  is  also  the  proper 
designation  of  that  which  was  visible,  Jesus ;  while  the  Father 
was  the  spirit  in  Him.  This  presence  of  the  Father  in  Jesus 
is  "the  Logos.  Kallistos  was  positive  that  the  Father  did  not 
suffer  on  the  cross,  but  suffered  with  the  sufferings  of  the  Son, 
Jesus;  yet  the  Father  "after  He  had  taken  unto  Himself  our 
flesh,  raised  it  to  the  nature  of  deity,  by  bringing  it  into  union 
with  Himself,  and  made  it  one,  so  that  Father  and  Son  must 
be  styled  one  God."5  This  is,  indeed,  far  from  logical  or  clear. 
One  cannot  blame  Hippolytus  or  Sabellius  for  not  liking  it. 
Yet  it  was  a  compromise  which  recognized  a  pre-existent  Logos 
in  Christ,  even  if  it  identified  that  Logos  with  the  Father; 
it  insisted  on  the  identity  of  that  which  indwelt  Jesus  with 
God ;  and  it  claimed  a  human  Jesus,  raised  to  divinity  by  the 
Father,  and  made  one  with  Him,  thus  really  showing  a  distinc 
tion  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  while  denying  in  words 
that  one  exists.  This  compromise  won  the  majority  in  Rome, 
and  opened  the  door  for  the  full  victory  of  the  Logos  Chris 
tology  there.  That  victory  was  determined  by  the  able  ex 
position  of  that  Christology  which  came  at  the  turning-point 
in  this  conflict  (213-218)  from  the  pen  of  Tertullian  of  Car 
thage — Against  Praxeas  (see  ante,  p.  69),  with  its  clear  defini 
tions  of  a  Trinity  in  three  persons  and  of  a  distinction  between 
the  divine  and  human  in  Christ. 

How  completely  this  Christology  won  its  way  in  Western 
Christendom  is  shown  by  the  treatise  on  the  Trinity,  written  by 
the  Roman  presbyter,  Novatian,  between  240  and  250.  That 
eminent  scholar  was  the  first  in  the  local  Roman  communion 
to  use  Latin  rather  than  Greek.  His  quarrel  with  the  dominant 
party  in  the  church  will  be  described  later  (p.  102).  Novatian 
did  little  more  than  reproduce  and  expand  Tertullian's  views. 
But  it  is  important  that  he  treated  this  exposition  as  the  only 
normal  and  legitimate  interpretation  of  the  "rule  of  truth"— the 

1  Hippolytus, Refutation,  96. 


76      VICTORY  OF  THE /LOGOS  CHRISTOLOGY 

"Apostles'  Creed."  That  syubol  had  been  silent  regarding  the 
Logos  Christology.  To  No^atian  the  Logos  Christology  is  its 
only  proper  meaning.  Between  Father  and  Son  a  "communion 
of  substance"  exists.1  The  Latin  equivalent  of  the  later  famous 
Nicene  Homoousion — o^oovcriov — was  therefore  current  in  Rome 
before  250.  Novatian  has  even  a  social  Trinity.  Comment 
ing  on  John  1030,  "I  and  the  Father  are  one,"  he  declares  that 
Christ  "said  one  thing  (unum).  Let  the  heretics  understand 
that  He  did  not  say  one  person.  For  one  placed  in  the  neuter 
intimates  the  social  concord,  not  the  personal  unity."  The 
most  valuable  thing  in  Novatian  is  that  he  emphasized  what 
was  the  heart  of  the  conviction  of  the  church  in  all  this  involved 
Christological  controversy,  that  Christ  was  fully  God  and 
equally  fully  man.3  Finally,  about  262,  the  Roman  bishop, 
Dionysius  (259-268),  writing  against  the  Sabellians,  expressed 
the  Logos  Christology  in  terms  more  nearly  approximating  to 
what  was  to  be  the  Nicene  decision  of  325  than  any  other  third- 
century  theologian.4  Thus  the  West  had  reached  conclusions 
readily  harmonizable  with  the  result  at  Nicsea,  more  than 
sixty  years  before  that  great  council.  The  East  had  attained 
no  such  uniformity. 


SECTION   IX.      THE   ALEXANDRIAN  SCHOOL 

Alexandria  was,  for  more  than  six  centuries,  the  second  city 
of  the  ancient  world,  surpassed  only  by  Rome,  and  later  by  Con 
stantinople,  in  importance.  Founded  by  Alexander  the  Great 
in  B.  C.  332,  it  was  primarily  a  trading  community,  and  as 
such,  attracted  numbers  of  Greeks  and  Jews.  Its  intellectual 
life  was  no  less  remarkable.  Its  library  was  the  most  famous 
in  the  empire.  In  its  streets  East  and  West  met.  There  Greek 
philosophy  entered  into  association,  or  competed  in  rivalry, 
with  Judaism  and  many  other  Oriental  cults,  while  the  influence 
of  ancient  Egyptian  thought  persisted.  It  was  the  most 
cosmopolitan  city  of  the  ancient  world.  There  the  Old  Testa 
ment  was  translated  into  Greek,  and  there  Philo  reinterpreted 
Judaism  in  terms  of  Hellenic  philosophy.  There  Neo-Platonism 
was  to  arise  in  the  third  century  of  our  era.  Of  the  introduc 
tion  of  Christianity  into  Alexandria,  or  into  Egypt  generally, 

1  Trinity,  31.  2  Ibid.,  27. 

3  Ibid.,  11,  24.  4  In  Athanasius,  De  Decretis,  26. 


THE  ALEXANDRIAN  SCHOOL  77 

nothing  is  known,  hut  it  must  have  been  early,  since  when  the 
veil  of  silence  was  lifted  Christianity  was  evidently  strongly 
rooted  there.  The  Gnostic,  Basilides,  taught  in  Alexandria  in 
the  reign  of  Hadrian  (117-138).  There  the  various  philosoph 
ical  systems  had  their  "schools/'  where  instruction  could  be 
obtained  by  all  inquirers,  and  it  was  but  natural  that  Christian 
teachers  should  imitate  this  good  example,  though  it  would 
appear  that  the  beginnings  of  this  work  were  independent  of 
the  Alexandrian  Church  authorities. 

By  about  185  a  famous  catechetical  school  existed  in  Alex 
andria,  then  under  the  leadership  of  a  converted  Stoic  phi 
losopher,  Pantsenus.  Whether  it  originated  with  him,  or  what 
his  own  theological  position  may  have  been,  it  is  impossible 
to  determine.  With  Clement  of  Alexandria  (?-c.  215),  Pan- 
tsenus's  pupil  and  successor,  it  comes  into  the  light.  The 
course  of  religious  development  in  Alexandria  had  evidently 
differed  from  that  in  Asia  Minor  and  the  West.  In  the  latter 
regions  the  contest  with  Gnosticism  had  bred  a  distrust  of 
philosophy  such  that  Tertullian  could  declare  that  there  was 
no  possible  connection  between  it  and  Christianity.  That 
contest  had,  also,  immensely  strengthened  the  appeal  to  apos 
tolical  tradition  and  consolidated  organization.  In  Alexandria 
these  characteristics  of  the  "Old  Catholic"  Church  had  not  so 
jfully  [developed,  while  philosophy  was  regarded  not  as  incon- 
>/sistent  with  Christianity,  but  as  its  handmaid.  Here  a  union 
of  what  was  best  in  ancient  philosophy,  chiefly  Platonism  and 
Stoicism,  was  effected  to  a  degree  nowhere  else  realized  in 
orthodox  circles,  and  the  result  was  a  Christian  Gnosticism. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  was  typical  of  this  movement.  At  the 
same  time  he  was  a  presbyter  in  the  Alexandrian  Church,  thus 
serving  as  a  connecting-link  between  the  church  and  the  school. 

The  more  important  of  the  works  of  Clement  which  have 
survived  are  three :  his  Exhortation  to  the  Heathen,  an  apologetic 
treatise,  giving  incidentally  no  little  information  as  to  the 
mystery  religions;  his  Instructor,  the  first  treatise  on  Chris 
tian  conduct,  and  an  invaluable  mine  of  information  as  to  the 
customs  of  the  age ;  and  his  Stromata,  or  Miscellanies,  a  collec 
tion  of  profound  thoughts  on  religion  and  theology,  arranged 
without  much  regard  to  system.  Throughout  he  shows  the 
mind  of  a  highly  trained  and  widely  read  thinker.  Clement 
would  interpret  Christianity  as  Philo  did  Judaism,  by  phi- 


78  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA 

losophy,  into  scientific  dogmatics.  To  him,  as  to  Justin,  whom 
he  far  surpassed  in  clearness  of  intellectual  grasp,  the  divine 
Logos  has  always  been  the  source  of  all  the  intelligence  and 
morality  of  the  human  race — the  teacher  of  mankind  every 
where.  "  Our  instructor  is  the  holy  God,  Jesus,  the  Word  who 
is  the  guide  of  all  humanity."  l  He  was  the  source  of  all  true 
philosophy.  "  God  is  the  cause  of  all  good  things ;  but  of  some 
primarily,  as  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament ;  and  of  others 
by  consequence,  as  of  philosophy.  Perchance,  too,  philosophy 
was  given  to  the  Greeks  directly  and  primarily,  till  the  Lord 
should  call  the  Greeks.  For  this  was  a  schoolmaster  to  bring 
the  Hellenic  mind,  as  the  law  the  Hebrews,  to  Christ." 

This  training  of  humanity  by  the  Logos  has  been,  therefore, 
a  progressive  education.  So  it  is,  also,  in  the  church.  "  Faith," 
that  is  simple,  traditional  Christianity,  is  enough  for  salvation ; 
but  the  man  who  adds  to  his  faith  "knowledge,"  has  a  higher 
possession.3  He  is  the  true,  Christian  Gnostic.  "To  him  that 
hath  shall  be  given ;  to  faith,  knowledge ;  to  knowledge,  love ; 
and  to  love,  the  inheritance."  4  The  highest  good  to  which 
knowledge  leads — a  good  even  greater  than  the  salvation  which 
it  necessarily  involves — is  the  knowledge  of  God.  "Could 
we  then  suppose  any  one  proposing  to  the  Gnostic  whether  he 
would  choose  the  knowledge  of  God  or  everlasting  salvation; 
and  if  these,  which  are  entirely  identical,  were  separable,  he 
would  without  the  least  hesitation  choose  the  knowledge  of 
God."  5  That  highest  good  brings  with  it  an  almost  Stoic 
absence  of  feeling,  either  of  pleasure  or  of  pain — a  condition  of 
blessedness  in  which  Clement  believes  Christ  stood,  and  to 
which  the  Apostles  attained  through  His  teaching.6  One  can 
readily  comprehend  that  Clement,  like  Justin,  had  no  real 
interest  in  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus.  The  Logos  then  became 
incarnate,  indeed,  but  Clement's  view  of  Christ's  life  is  almost 
Docetic,  certainly  more  so  than  that  of  any  teacher  of  orthodox 
standing  in  the  church  of  his  own  day. 

Clement  wrought  out  no  complete  theological  system. 
That  was  to  be  the  task  of  his  even  more  celebrated  pupil 
and  successor  in  the  headship  of  the  Alexandrian  catechetical 
school — Origen.  Born  of  Christian  parentage,  probably  in 
Alexandria,  between  182  and  185,  Origen  grew  up  there  into  a 

1  Instructor,  I7.  2  Stromata,  I5;  Ayer,  p.  190.  3  Ibid.,  I6. 

4  Ibid.,  710.  5  Ibid.,  422.  6  Ibid.,  69. 


ORIGEN'S  LIFE  79 

familiarity  with  the  Scriptures  that  was  to  render  him  the 
most  fully  acquainted  with  the  Bible  of  any  of  the  writers  in 
the  early  church.  His  study  of  philosophy  must  also  have 
been  early  begun.  A  youth  of  intense  feeling  and  eager  mental 
curiosity,  he  was  as  remarkable  for  his  precocity  as  for  the 
later  ripeness*  of  his  scholarship.  The  persecution  under  Sep- 
timius  Severus,  in  202,  cost  the  life  of  Origen's  father,  and 
he  would  have  shared  the  same  fate  had  not  his  mother  frus 
trated  his  wishes  by  a  stratagem.  This  persecution  had  driven 
Origen's  teacher,  Clement,  from  the  city;  and  now,  in  203,  in 
spite  of  his  youth,  he  gathered  round  himself  inquirers  with 
whom  he  reconstituted  the  catechetical  school.  This  position 
he  held  with  great  success  and  with  the  approval  of  Bishop 
Demetrius,  till  215,  when  the  Emperor  Caracalla  drove  all 
teachers  of  philosophy  from  Alexandria.  His  instruction  had 
before  been  interrupted  by  visits  to  Rome  (c.  211-212),  where 
he  met  Hippolytus,  and  to  Arabia  (c.  213-214).  His  manner 
of  life  was  ascetic  in  the  extreme,  and  to  avoid  slander  arising 
out  of  his  relations  with  his  numerous  inquirers  he  emasculated 
himself,  taking  Matt.  1912  as  a  counsel  of  perfection.  The  year 
215  saw  Origen  in  Csesarea  in  Palestine,  where  he  made  friends 
of  permanent  value.  Permitted  to  return  to  Alexandria,  proba 
bly  in  216,  he  resumed  his  instruction,  and  began  a  period  of 
scholarly  productivity  the  results  of  which  were  little  short  of 
marvellous. 

Origen's  labors  in  Alexandria  were  broken  by  a  journey  to 
Greece  and  Palestine  in  230  or  231.  He  was  still  a  layman; 
but,  by  friendly  Palestinian  bishops  he  was  ordained  a  presby 
ter,  in  Caesarea,  probably  that  he  might  be  free  to  preach. 
This  ordination  of  an  Alexandrian  layman,  Bishop  Demetrius 
of  Alexandria  not  unnaturally  viewed  as  an  intrusion  on  his 
jurisdiction,  and  jealousy  of  the  successful  teacher  may  have 
added  to  his  resentment.  At  all  events,  Demetrius  held 
synods  by  which  Origen  was  banished  from  Alexandria,  and 
as  far  as  was  in  their  power,  deposed  from  the  ministry.  He 
now  found  a  congenial  home  in  friendly  Caesarea.  Here  he  con 
tinued  his  indefatigable  studies,  his  teaching,  and  to  them  he 
added  frequent  preaching.  He  made  occasional  journeys.  He 
was  surrounded  by  friends  who  held  him  in  the  highest  esteem. 
With  the  great  Decian  persecution  (see  p.  86)  of  250,  this  period 
of  peace  ended.  He  was  imprisoned  and  tortured,  and  died  either 


80  ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY 

in  Csesarea  or  Tyre,  probably  in  251  (254?)  as  a  consequence 
of  the  cruelties  he  had  undergone.  No  man  of  purer  spirit  or 
nobler  aims  ornaments  the  history  of  the  ancient  church. 

Origen  was  a  man  of  many-sided  scholarship.  The  field  to 
which  he  devoted  most  attention  was  that  of  Biblical  text- 
criticism  and  exegesis.  Here  his  chief  productions  were  his 
monumental  Hexapla,  giving  the  Hebrew  and  four  parallel 
Greek  translations  of  the  Old  Testament;  and  a  long  series  of 
commentaries  and  briefer  notes  treating  nearly  the  entire 
range  of  Scripture.  It  was  the  most  valuable  work  that  had 
yet  been  done  by  any  Christian  scholar.  In  the  field  of  the- 
\/)logy  his  De  Principiis,  written  before  231,  was  not  merely  the 
first  great  systematic  presentation  of  Christianity,  but  its 
thoughts  and  methods  thenceforth  controlled  Greek  dogmatic 
development.  His  Against  Celsus,  written  between  246  and 
248,  in  reply  to  the  ablest  criticism  of  Christianity  that  heathen 
ism  had  produced — that  of  the  Platonist  Celsus  (c.  177) — was 
the  keenest  and  most  convincing  defense  of  the  Christian  faith 
that  the  ancient  world  brought  forth,  and  one  fully  worthy  of 
the  greatness  of  the  controversy.  Besides  these  monumental 
undertakings  he  found  time  for  the  discussion  of  practical 
Christian  themes,  such  as  prayer  and  martyrdom,  and  for  the 
preparation  of  many  sermons.  His  was  indeed  a  life  of  un 
wearied  industry. 

In  Origen  the  process  was  complete  which  had  long  been 
interpreting  Christian  truths  in  terms  of  Hellenic  thinking. 
He  gave  to  the  Christian  system  the  fullest  scientific  standing, 
v  as  tested  by  the  science  of  that  age,  which  was  almost  entirely 
comprised  in  philosophy  and  ethics.  His  philosophic  stand 
point  was  essentially  Platonic  and  Stoic,  with  a  decided  leaning 
toward  positions  similar  to  those  of  the  rising  Neo-Platonism, 
the  lectures  of  whose  founder,  Ammonius  Saccas,  he  is  said  to 
have  heard.1  These  philosophic  principles  he  sought  to  bring 
into  harmony  with  the  Scriptures,  as  his  great  Hebrew  fellow 
townsman,  Philo,  had  done,  by  allegorical  interpretation  of 
the  Bible.  All  normal  Scripture,  he  held,  has  a  threefold 
meaning.  "The  simple  man  may  be  edified  by  the  'flesh'  as 
it  were  of  the  Scriptures,  for  so  we  name'  the  obvious  sense ; 
while  he  who  has  ascended  a  certain  way  may  be  edified  by 
the  '  soul '  as  it  were ;  the  perfect  man  .  .  .  may  receive  edifi- 

iEusebius,  Church  History,  6: 196. 


OUIGEX'S  THEOLOGY  81 

cation  from  the  spiritual  law,  which  has  a  shadow  of  good 
things  to  come.  For  as  man  consists  of  body  and  soul  and 
spirit,  so  in  the  same  way  does  Scripture."1  This  allegorical 
system  enabled  Origen  to  read  practically  what  he  wished  into 
the  Scriptures. 

As  a  necessary  foundation  for  his  theological  system,  Origen 
posited  that  "which  differs  in  no  respect  from  ecclesiastical 
and  apostolical  tradition."  These  fundamentals  of  tradi 
tional  Christianity  include  belief  (1)  "in  one  God  .  .  .  the 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  [who]  Himself  gave  the  law 
and  the  prophets  and  the  Gospels,  being  also  the  God  of  the 
Apostles  and  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments"  ;  (2)  "that  Jesus 
Christ  Himself  .  .  .  was  born  of  the  Father  before  all  creatures 
.  .  .  became  a  man,  and  was  incarnate  although  God,  and 
while  made  a  man  remained  the  God  which  He  was  .  .  .  was 
born  of  a  Virgin  .  .  .  was  truly  born  and  did  truly  suffer  and 
.  .  .  did  truly  die  .  .  .  did  truly  rise  from  the  dead"  ;  (3)  "that 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  associated  in  honor  and  dignity  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son" ;  (4)  in  the  resurrection  and  in  future  re 
wards  and  punishments ;  (5)  in  free  will ;  (6)  in  the  existence 
and  opposition  of  the  devil  and  his  angels ;  (7)  that  the  world 
was  made  in  time  and  will  "be  destroyed  on  account  of  its 
wickedness" ;  (8)  "that  the  Scriptures  were  written  by  the  Spirit 
of  God " ;  (9)  "  that  there  are  certain  angels  of  God,  and  cer 
tain  good  influences  which  are  His  servants  in  accomplishing  the 
salvation  of  men."  3  These  are  essential  beliefs  for  all  Chris 
tians,  learned  and  unlearned,  as  taught  by  the  church;  and  on 
them  Origen  proceeded  to  erect  his  mighty  fabric  of  systematic 
theology — that  explanation  of  Christianity  for  him  who  would 
add  to  his  faith  knowledge. 

Origen's  conception  of  the  universe  was  strongly  Platonic. 
The  real  world  is  the  spiritual  reality  behind  this  temporary, 
phenomenal,  visible  world.  In  that  world  great  transactions 
have  had  their  place.  There,  as  with  Plato,  our  spirits  existed. 
There  sin  first  entered.  There  we  fell,  and  thither  the  redeemed 
will  return.  God,  the  uncreated,  perfect  Spirit,  is  the  source  of 
all.  From  Him  the  Son  is  eternally  generated.  "  His  generation 
is  as  eternal  and  everlasting  as  the  brilliancy  which  is  produced 
from  the  sun."  4  Yet  Christ  is  "a  second  God."  5  a  "crea- 

1  De  Principiis,  4  : 111 ;  Ayer,  pp.  200,  201.     2  De  Principiis,  Preface. 
3  All  ibid.  4  De  Principiis,  1 :  24.  5  Celsus,  539. 


82  ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY 

ture."  Christ's  position,  as  Loofs  has  pointed  out,  was  viewed 
by  Origen  as  the  same  as  that  of  the  nous — mind,  thought — in 
the  Neo-Platonic  system.  He  is  the  "mediator''  between  God 
and  His  world  of  creatures,  the  being  through  whom  they  were 
made.  Highest  of  these  creatures  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom 
Origen  reckons  to  the  Godhead,  by  reason  of  churchly  tradi 
tion,  but  for  whom  he  has  no  real  necessity  in  his  system. 

All  spiritual  beings,  including  the  spirits  of  men,  were  made 
by  God,  through  the  Son,  in  the  true  spiritual  world.  "He 
had  no  other  reason  for  creating  them  than  on  account  of 
Himself,  i.  e.  His  own  goodness."  1  All  were  good,  though  their 
goodness,  unlike  that  of  God,  was  "an  accidental  and  perisha 
ble  quality."2  All  had  free  will.  Hence  some  fell  by  sin  in 
the  invisible  spiritual  world.  It  was  as  a  place  of  punishment 
and  of  reform  that  God  created  this  visible  universe,  placing 
fallen  spirits  therein  in  proportion  to  the  heinousness  of  their 
sins.  The  least  sinful  are  angels  and  have  as  bodies  the  stars. 
Those  of  greater  sinfulness  are  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  with 
animal  souls,  also,  and  mortal  bodies.  They  constitute  man 
kind.  The  worst  are  the  demons,  led  by  the  devil  himself. 

Salvation  was  wrought  by  the  Logos-Son  becoming  man,  by 
uniting  with  a  human  soul  that  had  not  sinned  in  its  previous 
existence  and  a  pure  body.  While  here  Christ  was  God  and 
man ;  but  at  the  resurrection  and  ascension  Christ's  humanity 
was  given  the  glory  of  His  divinity,  and  is  no  longer  human 
but  divine.3  That  transformation  Christ  effects  for  all  His 
disciple 3.  "From  Him  there  began  the  union  of  the  divine 
with  the  human  nature,  in  order  that  the  human,  by  commu 
nion  with  the  divine,  might  rise  to  be  divine,  not  in  Jesus  alone, 
but  in  all  those  who  not  only  believe  but  enter  upon  the  life 
which  Jesus  taught."  4  Origen,  more  than  any  theologian 
since  Paul,  emphasized  the  sacrificial  character  of  Christ's 
death ;  but  he  interpreted  it  in  many  ways,  some  of  which  were 
not  very  consistent  with  others.  Christ  suffered  what  was  "  for 
the  good  of  the  human  race"  as  a  representative  and  an  exam 
ple.5  He  was  in  some  sense  a  propitiatory  offering  to  God.  He 
was  a  ransom  paid  to  the  powers  of  evil.6  He  conquered  the 
demons.7  He  frustrated  their  expectation  that  they  could  hold 

1  De  Principtis,  2 :  96.  2  Ibid.,  1 :  62.  3  Celsus,  341. 

4  Ibid.,  32».  5  Ibid,,  717 ;  Ayer,  p.  197. 

6  Com.  on  Matt.,  1228,  168;  Ayer,  p.  197,  7  Com.  on  John,  637. 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  83 

Him  by  the  bonds  of  death  and  brought  their  kingdom  to  an 
end.1  Those  of  mankind  who  are  His  disciples  are  received  at 
death  into  Paradise;  the  evil  find  their  place  in  hell.  Yet, 
ultimately,  not  only  all  men,  but  even  the  devil  and  all  spirits 
with  him  will  be  saved.2  This  will  be  the  restoration  of  all 
things,  when  God  will  be  all  in  all. 

r  Origen's  theological  structure  is  the  greatest  intellectual 
achievement  of  the  ante-Nicene  Church.  It  influenced  pro 
foundly  all  after-thinking  in  the  Orient.  Yet  it  is  easy  to  see 
how  he  could  be  quoted  on  either  side  in  the  later  Christological 
controversies,  and  to  understand,  in  the  light  of  a  later  rigid  or 
thodoxy,  how  he  came  to  be  regarded  as  a  heretic,  whose  views 
were  condemned  by  a  synod  in  his  native  Alexandria  in  399  or 
400,  by  the  Emperor  Justinian  in  443,  and  by  the  Fifth  General 
Council  in  553.  His  work  was  professedly  for  the  learned,  not 
for  the  common  Christian.  Because  its  science  is  not  our  sci 
ence  it  seems  strange  to  us.  But  it  gave  to  Christianity  full 
scientific  standing  in  that  age.  In  particular,  the 
Clement  and  Origen  greatly  advanced  the 
Logos  Christology  in  the  Orient,  though  Sabell 
wide-spread  there,  and  an  adoptionist  Christoload  an  emi 
nent  representative  in  the  bishop  of  Antioch,  Paul  of  Samosata, 
as  late  as  272. 

Yet  Origen  was  not  without  serious  critics  in  the  century  in 
which  he  lived.  Of  these  the  most  important,  theologically, 
was  Methodius,  bishop  of  CMfcws,  in  Lycia,  who  died  about 
311.  Taking  his  stand  on  t^padition  of  Asia  Minor,  Metho 
dius  denied  Origen's  doctrines  of  the  soul's  pre-existence  and 
imprisonment  in  this  world,  and  affirmed  the  resurrection  of 
the  body.  In  ability  he  was  not  to  be  compared  with  Origen. 

SECTION  X.      CHURCH  AND  STATE  FROM   180  TO  260 

The  visible  decline  of  the  Roman  Empire  is  usually  reckoned 
from  the  death  of  Marcus  Aurelius  (180),  though  its  causes  go 
back  much  further.  Population  was  diminishing.  Trade  and 
industry  were  fettered  by  heavy  taxation.  The  leadership 
passed  more  and  more  from  the  hands  of  the  cultivated  classes. 
The  army  was  largely  recruited  from  the  outlying  provinces  of 
the  empire,  and  even  from  tribes  beyond  its  borders.  From  the 

1  Com.  on  Matt.,  139.  2  De  Principiis,  1 :  6l-<;  Ayer,  p.  198. 


84      DECLINE  OF  EMPIRE,  GROWTH  OF  CHURCH 

death  of  Commodus  (192),  it  dictated  the  choice  of  Emperors, 
who,  in  general,  were  very  far  from  representing  the  higher 
type  of  Grseco-Roman  culture,  as  had  the  Antonines.  The 
whole  administrative  machinery  of  the  empire  was  increasingly 
inefficient,  and  the  defense  of  its  borders  inadequate.  From 
a  military  point  of  view,  conditions  grew  steadily  worse  till  the 
time  of  Aurelian  (270-275),  and  were  hardly  securely  bettered 
till  that  of  Diocletian  (284-305).  In  other  respects  no  consid 
erable  pause  was  achieved  in  the  decline.  Yet  this  period  was 
also  one  of  increasing  feeling  of  popular  unity  in  the  empire. 
The  lines  of  distinction  between  the  races  were  breaking  down. 
In  212  the  Roman  citizenship  was  extended  by  Caracalla,  not 
wholly  from  disinterested  motives,  to  all  free  inhabitants  of  the 
empire.  Above  all,  from  a  religious  point  of  view,  the  close 
of  the  second  and  the  whole  of  the  third  centuries  were  an  age 
of  syncretism,  a  period  of  deepening  religious  feeling,  in  which 
the  mystery  religions  of  the  Orient — and  Christianity  also — 
ma^^^xceedingly  rapid  increase  in  the  number  of  their  ad- 

^(PPgro^Mpf  the  church  was  extensive  as  well  as  intensive. 
To  near  the^KTse  of  the  second  century  it  had  penetrated  little 
beyond  those  whose  ordinary  tongue  was  Greek.  By  the  dawn 
of  the  third  century  the  church  was  rapidly  advancing  in  Latin- 
speaking  North  Africa  and,  though  more  slowly,  in  Spain  and 
Gaul,  and  reaching  toward,  if  it  had  not  already  arrived  in, 
Britain.  In  Egypt  Christiai^k  was  now  penetrating  the 
native  population,  while  by  19(JBBas  well  represented  in  Syriac- 
speaking  Edessa.  The  church  was  also  reaching  more  exten 
sively  than  earlier  into  the  higher  classes  of  society.  It  was 
being  better  understood ;  and  though  Tertullian  shows  that 
the  old  popular  slanders  of  cannibalism  and  gross  immorality 
were  still  prevalent  in  197,1  as  the  third  century  went  on  they 
seem  to  have  much  decreased,  doubtless  through  growing  ac 
quaintance  with  the  real  significance  of  Christianity. 

The  relations  of  the  state  to  the  church  during  the  period 
from  180  to  260  were  most  various,  depending  on  the  will  of 
the  several  Emperors,  but,  on  the  whole,  such  as  to  aid  rather 
hinder  its  growth  till  the  last  decade  of  this  period. 
Christianity  was  condemned.  It  had  no  right  to 
exiM2  Practically,  it  enjoyed  a  considerable  degree  of  tolera- 
Apology,  7.  2  Tertullian,  Apology,  4. 


THE  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  EMPERORS          85 

tion  during  most  of  this  epoch.  The  persecution  which  had 
been  begun  under  Marcus  Aurelius  continued  into  the  reign  of 
Commodus,  but  he  soon  neglected  the  church  as  he  did  afoul  ev 
erything  else  not  connected  with  his  own  pleasures.  This  rest 
continued  till  well  into  the  reign  of  Septimius  Severus  (193-211) ; 
but  was  broken  in  202  by  a  persecution  of  considerable  severity, 
especially  in  Carthage  and  Egypt.  Under  Caracalla  (211-217), 
persecution  again  raged  in  North  Africa.  Elagabalus  (218- 
222),  though  an  ardent  supporter  of  sun-worship,  was  disposed 
to  a  syncretism  which  was  not  openly  hostile  to  Christianity. 
Alexander  Severus  (222-235)  was  distinctly  favorable.  A  syn- 
cretist  who  would  unite  many  religions,  he  placed  a  bust  of 
Christ  in  his  private  chapel  along  with  images  of  leaders  of 
other  faiths;  while  his  mother,  Julia  Mamsea,  under  whose  in 
fluence  he  stood,  heard  lectures  by  Origen.  He  even  decided 
a  dispute  as  to  whether  a  piece  of  property  in  Rome  should 
be  used  by  its  Christian  claimants,  doubtless  as  a  place  of 
worship,  or  by  their  opponents  as  a  cook-shop,  in  favor  of 
the  Christians.  A  change  of  policy  came  under  Maximinus 
(235-238),  by  whom  an  edict  against  the  Christians  was  is 
sued,  which,  though  not  extensively  enforced,  thrust  both  the 
"Catholic"  bishop,  Pontianus,  and  his  schismatic  rival  Hip- 
polytus  from  Rome  into  the  cruel  slavery  of  the  mines,  where 
they  soon  lost  their  lives.  In  eastern  Asia  Minor  and  Palestine 
this  persecution  made  itself  felt.  Under  Gordian  (238-244) 
and  till  near  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Philip  the  Arabian  (244- 
249)  the  church  had  rest.  For  that  new  outbreak  Philip  was 
in  no  way  responsible.  Indeed,  an  erroneous  rumor  declared 
him  to  be  secretly  a  Christian.  The  number  of  martyrs  in 
these  persecutions  was  not  large,  as  Origen  testified,  writing 
between  246  and  248,1  and  these  outbreaks  were  local,  if  at 
times  of  considerably  extent.  Though  Christians  were  deprived 
of  all  legal  protecting,  the  average  believer  must  have  thought 
that  the  conditioi^^f  the  church  was  approaching  practical 
safety. 

This  growing  feeling  of  security  was  rudely  dispelled.     The 
year  248  saw  the  celebration  of  the^thousandth  anniversary  of      / 
the  founding  of  Rome.     It  was  a  time  of  revival  of  ancient  ^ 
traditions  and  of  the  memories  of  former  splendors.     The  em 
pire  was  never  more  threatened  by  barbarian  attack  or  torn 

1  Celsus,  38. 


86  THE  DECIAN  PERSECUTION 

by  internal  disputes.  The  populace  attributed  these  troubles 
to  the  cessation  of  persecution.1  A  fierce  mob  attack  broke 
out  in  Alexandria  before  the  death  of  Philip  the  Arabian.  To 
the  more  observant  heathens  the  growth  of  a  rigidly  organized 
church  might  well  seem  that  of  a  state  within  the  state,  the 
more  dangerous  that  Christians  still  largely  refused  army  ser 
vice  or  the  duties  of  public  office.2  Nearer  at  hand  lay  the 
plausible,  though  fallacious,  argument  that  as  Rome  had  grown 
great  when  the  old  gods  were  worshipped  by  all,  so  now  their 
rejection  by  a  portion  of  the  population  had  cost  Rome  their 
aid,  and  had  caused  the  calamities  evident  on  every  hand. 
This  was  apparently  the  feeling  of  the  new  Emperor,  Decius 
(249-251),  and  of  a  conservative  Roman  noble,  Valerian,  with 
whom  Decius  was  intimately  associated.  The  result  was  the 
edict  of  250,  which  initiated  the  first  universal  and  systematic 
persecution  of  Christianity. 

The  Decian  persecution  was  by  far  the  worst  trial  that  the 
church  as  a  whole  had  undergone — the  more  severe  because  it 
had  principle  and  determination  behind  it.  The  aim  was  not 
primarily  to  take  life,  though  there  were  numerous  and  cruel 
martyrdoms,  but  rather  to  compel  Christians  by  torture,  im 
prisonment,  or  fear  to  sacrifice  to  the  old  gods.  Bishops  Fa 
bian  of  Rome  and  Babylas  of  Antioch  died  as  martyrs.  Origen 
and  hosts  of  others  were  tortured.  The  number  of  these  "con 
fessors"  was  very  great.  So,  also,  was  the  number  of  the 
"lapsed" — that  is,  of  those  who,  through  fear  or  torture,  sac 
rificed,  burned  incense,  or  procured  certificates  from  friendly 
or  venal  officials  that  they  had  duly  worshipped  in  the  form 
prescribed  by  the  state.3  Many  of  these  lapsed,  when  the  per 
secution  was  over,  returned  to  seek  in  bitter  penitence  read- 
mission  to  the  church.  The  question  of  their  treatment  caused 
a  long,  enduring  schism  in  Rome,  and  much  trouble  elsewhere 
(see  p.  101).  Fierce  as  it  was,  the  persecution  under  Decius 
and  Valerian  was  soon  over;  but  only  to  be  renewed  in  some 
what  milder  form  by  Decius's  successor,  Gallus  (251-253). 
In  253  Decius's  old  associate  in  persecution,  Valerian,  obtained 
possession  of  the  empire  (253-260).  Though  he  at  first  left 
the  Christians  undisturbed,  in  257  and  258  he  renewed  the  at 
tack  with  greater  ferocity.  Christian  assemblies  were  forbid- 

1  Origen,  Celsus,  316 ;  Ayer,  p.  206,  2  Origen,  Celsus,  873- 76. 

3  Ayer,  p.  210,  for  specimens, 


THE  PERSECUTION  OF  VALERIAN  87 

den;  Christian  churches  and  cemeteries  confiscated;  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons  ordered  to  be  executed,  and  lay  Chris 
tians  in  high  places  disgraced,  banished,  and  their  goods  held 
forfeited.  Under  this  persecution  Cyprian  died  in  Carthage, 
Bishop  Sixtus  II  and  the  Deacon  Laurentius  in  Rome,  and 
Bishop  Fructufosus  in  Tarragona  in  Spain.  It  was  a  fearful  pe 
riod  of  trial,  lasting,  with  intermissions  indeed,  from  250  to  259. 
In  260  Valerian  became  a  prisoner  in  the  hands  of  the  vic 
torious  Persians.  His  son,  associate  Emperor  and  successor, 
Gallienus  (260-268),  a  thoroughly  weak  and  incompetent  ruler, 
promptly  gave  up  the  struggle  with  Christianity.  Church 
property  was  returned,  and  a  degree  of  favor  shown  that  has 
sometimes,  though  erroneously,  been  interpreted  as  a  legal 
toleration.  That  the  act  of  Gallienus  was  not.  The  old  laws 
against  Christianity  were  unrepealed.  Practically,  however,  a 
peace  began  which  was  to  last  till  the  outbreak  of  the  persecu 
tion  under  Diocletian,  in  303,  though  probably  threatened  by 
Aurelian  just  before  his  death  in  275.  The  church  had  come 
out  of  the  struggle  stronger  than  ever  before. 

SECTION  XI.      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL   DEVELOPMENT   OF 
THE   CHURCH 

The  effect  of  the  struggle  with  Gnosticism  and  Montanism 
upon  the  development  of  the  bishoprics  as  centres  of  unity, 
witnesses  to  apostolical  tradition,  and  bearers  of  an  apostolical 
succession,  has  already  been  seen  (Section  IV) .  The  tendencies 
then  developed  continued  to  work  in  increasing  power,  with 
the  result  that,  between  200  and  260,  the  church  as  an  or 
ganization  took  on  most  of  the  constitutional  features  which 
were  to  characterize  it  throughout  the  period  of  the  dominance 
of  Grseco-Roman  culture.  Above  all,  this  development  was 
manifested  in  the  increase  of  the  power  of  the  bishops.  The 
circumstances  of  the  time,  the  contests  with  Gnostics  and 
Montanists,  the  leadership  of  increasing  masses  of  ignorant 
recent  converts  from  heathenism,  the  necessities  of  uniformity 
in  worship  and  discipline,  all  tended  to  centralize  in  the  bishop 
the  rights  and  authority  which,  in  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century  had  been  the  possession  of  the  Christian  congregation 
as  a  whole.  The  "gifts  of  the  Spirit,"  which  had  been  very 
real  to  the  thought  of  Christians  of  the  apostolic  and  sub- 


88  GROWING  POWER  OF  THE  BISHOPS 

apostolic  ages,  and  which  might  be  possessed  by  any  one,  were 
now  a  tradition  rather  than  a  vital  reality.  The  contest  with 
Montanism,  among  other  causes,  had  led  such  claims  to  be  re 
garded  with  suspicion.  The  tradition,  however,  remained, 
but  it  was  rapidly  changing  into  a  theory  of  official  endowment. 
These  "gifts"  were  now  the  official  possession  of  the  clergy, 
especially  of  the  bishops.  The  bishops  were  the  divinely  ap 
pointed  guardians  of  the  deposit  of  the  faith,  and  therefore 
those  who  could  determine  what  was  heresy.  They  were  the 
leaders  of  worship — a  matter  of  constantly  increasing  impor 
tance  with  the  growing  conviction,  wide-spread  by  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century,  that  the  ministry  is  a  priesthood.  They 
were  the  disciplinary  officers  of  the  congregation — though  their 
authority  in  this  respect  was  not  firmly  fixed — able  to  say  when 
the  sinner  needed  excommunication  and  when  he  showed  suffi 
cient  repentance  for  restoration.  As  given  full  expression  by 
Cyprian  of  Carthage,  about  250  (ante,  p.  70),  the  foundation 
of  the  church  is  the  unity  of  the  bishops. 

The  Christians  of  a  particular  city  had  been  regarded,  cer 
tainly  from  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  as  constituting 
a  single  community,  whether  meeting  in  one  congregation  or 
many.  As  such  they  were  under  the  guidance  of  a  single  bishop. 
Ancient  civilization  was  strongly  urban  in  its  political  consti 
tution.  The  adjacent  country  district  looked  to  its  neighbor 
ing  city.  Christianity  had  been  planted  in  the  cities.  By 
efforts  going  out  from  them,  congregations  were  formed  in  the 
surrounding  villages,  which  came  at  first  into  the  city  for  their 
worship  j1  but  as  they  grew  larger  must  increasingly  have  met 
by  themselves.  Planted  by  Christians  from  the  cities,  they 
were  under  the  oversight  of  the  city  bishop,  whose  immediate 
field  of  superintendence  was  thus  growing,  by  the  third  century, 
into  a  diocese.  In  some  rural  portions  of  the  East,  notably 
Syria  and  Asia  Minor,  where  city  influence  was  relatively  weak, 
country  groups  of  congregations  developed  before  the  end  of 
the  third  century,  headed  by  a  rural  bishop,  a  chorepiskopos 
— XwpeTrio-KOTros — but  this  system  was  not  of  large  growth,  nor 
were  these  country  bishops  deemed  the  equals  in  dignity  of  their 
city  brethren.  The  system  did  not  spread  to  the  West  at  this 
time,  though  introduced  there  in  the  Middle  Ages,  only  to  prove 
unsatisfactory. 

1  Justin,  Apology,  67 ;  Ayer,  p.  35. 


CLERGY  AND  LAITY  89 

To  Cyprian,  the  episcopate  was  a  unit,  and  each  bishop  a 
representative  of  all  its  powers,  on  an  equality  with  all  other 
bishops.  Yet  even  in  his  time  this  theory  was  becoming  im 
practicable.  The  bishops  of  the  great,  politically  influential 
cities  of  the  epipire  were  attaining  a  superiority  in  dignity  over 
others,  which  those  of  Rome  even  more  than  the  rest  were  striv 
ing  to  translate  into  a  superiority  of  jurisdiction.  Rome, 
Alexandria,  Antioch,  Carthage,  and  Ephesus,  with  Jerusalem 
by  reason  of  religious  sentiment,  had  an  outstanding  eminence, 
and  Rome  most  of  all.  Besides  these  greater  posts,  the  bishop 
of  the  capital  city  of  each  province  was  beginning  to  be  looked 
upon  as  having  a  certain  superiority  to  those  of  lesser  towns  in 
his  region ;  but  the  full  development  of  the  metropolitan  dig 
nity  was  not  to  come  till  the  fourth  century,  and  earlier  in  the 
East  than  in  the  West. 

By  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  clergy  were  sharply 
distinguished  from  laity.  The  technical  use  of  the  words  Imikis 
— X**/ct5 — and  Ider^s — «X%>«9 — was  a  gradual  development,  as 
was  the  distinction  which  they  implied.  The  earliest  Christian 
employment  of  the  former  was  by  Clement  of  Rome.1  The  lat 
ter  occurs  in  1  Peter  53,  in  wholly  untechnical  usage.  But  /c\i)pos 
and  its  Latin  equivalent,  ordo,  were  the  common  expressions  for 
the  "orders"  of  magistrates  and  dignitaries  of  the  Roman  Em 
pire.  It  is  probably  from  such  popular  usage  that  they  come 
into  Christian  employment.  The  letter  of  the  churches  of 
Lyons  and  Vienne,  giving  a  description  of  the  persecution  of 
177,  spoke  of  the  "order"  of  the  martyrs — tc\r)pov.2  Tertullian 
wrote  of  "clerical  order"  and  "ecclesiastical  orders."  3  By 
his  time  the  distinction  had  become  practically  fixed ;  even  if 
Tertullian  himself  could  recall,  for  purposes  of  argument,  the 
early  doctrine  of  the  priesthood  of  all  believers,4  "are  not  even 
we  laics  priests  ?  "  5 

Admission  to  clerical  office  was  by  ordination,  a  rite  which 
certainly  goes  back  to  the  earliest  days  of  the  church,  at  least 
as  a  sign  of  the  bestowal  of  charismatic  gifts,  or  separation  for 
a  special  duty.6  The  ordinary  process  of  the  choice  of  a 
bishop  by  the  middle  of  the  third  century  was  a  nomination 

1  93-97 ;  in  1  Clem.,  40.  2  Eusebius,  Church  History,  5  :  I10. 

3  Monogamy,  12.  4  Chastity,  7. 

5  Compare  1  Peter  25;  Rev.  lfi. 

6  Acts  66,  133;  also  1  Tim.  414,  522;  2  Tim.  I6. 


90  MAJOR  AND  MINOR  ORDERS 

by  the  other  clergy,  especially  the  presbyters,  of  the  city; 
the  approval  of  neighboring  bishops,  and  ratification  or  elec 
tion  by  the  congregation.1  Ordination  followed  at  the  hands 
of  at  least  one  already  a  bishop — a  number  of  episcopal  ordain- 
ers  which  had  become  fixed  at  a  normal  minimum  of  three  by 
the  end  of  the  third  century.  The  control  of  the  choice  of  the 
presbyters,  deacons,  and  lower  clergy  lay  in  the  hand  of  their 
local  bishop,  by  whom  they  were  ordained.2  The  presbyters 
were  the  bishop's  advisers.  With  his  consent  they  adminis 
tered  the  sacraments.3  They  preached.  As  congregations 
grew  more  numerous  in  a  city,  a  presbyter  would  be  placed  in 
immediate  charge  of  each,  and  their  importance  thereby  en 
hanced,  from  its  relative  depression,  immediately  after  the  rise 
of  the  monarchical  episcopate.  There  was  no  fixed  limit  to 
their  number.  The  deacons  were  immediately  responsible  to 
the  bishop,  and  were  his  assistants  in  the  care  of  the  poor  and 
other  financial  concerns,  in  aiding  in  the  worship  and  discipline. 
They  often  stood  in  closer  practical  relations  to  him  than  the 
presbyters.  At  Rome,  the  number  of  the  deacons  was  seven, 
in  remembrance  of  Acts  65.  When  Bishop  Fabian  (236-250) 
adopted  the  civil  division  of  the  city  as  its  fourteen  charity 
districts,  he  appointed  seven  sub-deacons  in  addition  to  the 
seven  deacons,  that  the  primitive  number  might  not  be  sur 
passed.  Sub-deacons  also  existed  in  Carthage  in  the  time  of 
Cyprian,  and  quite  generally  at  a  little  later  period.  In  many 
parts  of  the  church  there  was  no  fixed  rule  as  to  the  number  of 
deacons. 

Bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons  constituted  the  major 
orders.  Below  them  there  stood  in  the  first  half  of  the  third 
century,  the  minor  orders.  In  the  general  absence  of  all  sta 
tistical  information  as  to  the  early  church,  a  letter  of  Bishop 
Cornelius  of  Rome,  written  about  251,  is  of  high  value  as 
showing  conditions  in  that  important  church.  Under  the  single 
bishop  in  Rome  there  were  forty-six  presbyters  and  seven 
deacons.  Below  them,  constituting  what  were  soon  to  be 
known  as  the  minor  orders,  were  seven  sub-deacons,  forty-two 
acolytes,  and  fifty-two  exorcists,  readers,  and  janitors.4  More 

1  Cyprian,  Letters,  51-558,  66-6S2,  67*.  5. 

2  Ibid.,  23-29,  33-S95,  34-40, 

3  Tertullian,  Baptism,  17 ;  Ayer,  p.  167. 

4  Eusebius,  Church  History,  6 :  4311. 


THE  LESSER  CLERGY  91 

than  fifteen  hundred  dependents  were  supported  by  the  church, 
which  may  have  included  thirty  thousand  adherents.  Some 
of  these  offices  were  of  very  ancient  origin.  Those  of  readers 
and  exorcists  had  originally  been  regarded  as  charismatic. 
Exorcists  continued  to  be  so  viewed  in  the  Orient,  and  were 
not  there  prc/perly  officers.  By  the  time  of  Cyprian  the  read 
er's  office  was  thought  a  preparatory  step  toward  that  of  pres 
byter  .*  The  exorcist's  task  was  to  drive  out  evil  spirits,  in 
whose  prevalent  working  the  age  firmly  believed.  Of  the 
duties  of  acolytes  little  is  known  save  that  they  were  assistants 
in  service  and  aid.  They  were  not  to  be  found  in  the  Orient. 
The  janitors  were  especially  important  when  it  became  the 
custom  to  admit  none  but  the  baptized  to  the  more  sacred 
parts  of  the  service.  In  the  East,  though  not  in  the  West, 
deaconesses  were  to  be  found  who  were  reckoned  in  a  certain 
sense  as  of  the  clergy.  Their  origin  was  probably  charismatic 
and  was  of  high  antiquity.2  Their  tasks  were  those  of  care  for 
women,  especially  the  ill.  Besides  these  deaconesses  there  were 
to  be  found  in  the  churches,  both  East  and  West,  a  class  known 
as  "widows,"  whose  origin  was  likewise  ancient.3  Their  duties 
were  prayer  and  aid  to  the  sick,  especially  of  their  own  sex. 
They  were  held  in  high  honor,  though  hardly  to  be  reckoned 
properly  as  of  the  "  clergy."  All  these  were  supported,  in  whole 
or  in  part,  by  the  gifts  of  the  congregation,  which  were  of  large 
amount,  both  of  eatables  and  of  money.4  These  gifts  were 
looked  upon,  by  the  time  of  Cyprian,  as  "tithes,"  and  were  all 
at  the  disposal  of  the  bishop.5  By  the  middle  of  the  third  cen 
tury  the  higher  clergy  were  expected  to  give  their  whole  time 
to  the  work  of  the  ministry;6  yet  even  bishops  sometimes  shared 
in  secular  business,  not  always  of  a  commendable  character. 
The  lower  clergy  could  still  engage  in  trades.  It  is  evident, 
however,  that  though  the  ancient  doctrine  of  the  priesthood 
of  all  believers  might  still  occasionally  be  remembered,  it  had  a 
purely  theoretical  value.  In  practical  Christian  life  the  clergy, 
by  the  middle  of  the  third  century  were  a  distinct,  close-knit 
spiritual  rank,  on  whom  the  laity  were  religiously  dependent, 
and  who  were  in  turn  supported  by  laymen's  gifts. 

1  Letters,  335.  2  Romans  161.  3 1  Tim.  59-  10. 

4  Teaching,  13 ;  Justin,  Apology,  67 ;  Tertullian,  Apology,  39 ;  Ayer,  pp. 
35,  41. 

6  Letters,  65-11.  6  Cyprian,  Lapsed,  6. 


92  PUBLIC  WORSHIP 

SECTION  XII.      PUBLIC  WORSHIP  AND  SACRED  SEASONS 

Already,  by  the  time  of  Justin  (153),  the  primitive  division 
of  worship  into  two  assemblies,  one  for  prayer  and  instruction 
and  the  other  for  the  Lord's  Supper  in  connection  with  a  com 
mon  meal  had  ceased.  The  Lord's  Supper  was  now  the  crown 
ing  act  of  the  service  of  worship  and  edification.1  Its  separa 
tion  from  the  common  meal  was  now  complete.  The  course  of 
development  during  the  succeeding  century  was  determined 
by  the  prevalence  of  ideas  drawn  from  the  mystery  religions. 
There  is  no  adequate  ground  to  believe  that  there  was  inten 
tional  imitation.  Christians  of  the  last  half  of  the  second  and 
the  third  centuries  lived  in  an  atmosphere  highly  charged  with 
influences  sprung  from  these  faiths.  It  was  but  natural  that 
they  should  look  upon  their  own  worship  from  the  same  point 
of  view.  It  is  probable  that  already  existing  tendencies  in 
this  direction  were  strongly  reinforced  by  the  great  growth  of 
the  church  by  conversion  from  heathenism  in  the  first  half  of 
the  third  century. 

The  church  came  to  be  more  and  more  regarded  as  possessed 
of  life-giving  mysteries,  under  the  superintendence  and  dis 
pensation  of  the  clergy.  Inquirers  were  prepared  for  initiation 
by  instruction — the  catechumens.  Such  preparation,  in  some 
degree,  had  existed  from  the  apostolic  days.  It  was  now  sys 
tematized.  Origen  taught  in  an  already  celebrated  school  in 
Alexandria  in  203.  Cyprian  shows  that  in  Carthage,  by  about 
250,  such  instruction  was  in  charge  of  an  officer  designated  by 
the  bishop.2  Instruction  was  followed  by  the  great  initiatory 
rite  of  baptism  (see  Section  XIII),  which  granted  admission  to 
the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  the  life-giving  mystery  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  (see  Section  XIV).  As  in  the  time  of  Justin,  the  other 
elements  of  worship  consisted  of  Scripture  reading,  preaching, 
prayers,  and  hymns.  These  were  open  to  all  honest  inquirers. 
The  analogy  of  the  mystery  religions  barred  all  but  those 
initiate  or  about  to  be  initiate  from  presence  at  baptism  or  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  led  to  a  constant  augmentation  of  the 
valuation  placed  on  these  rites  as  the  most  sacred  elements  of 
worship.  Whether  the  custom  had  arisen  by  the  third  century 
of  regarding  these  sacraments  as  a  secret  discipline,  in  which 
the  exact  words  of  the  Creed  and  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  were  for 

1  Justin,  Apology,  67  ;  Ay  or,  p.  35.  2  Letters,  23-29. 


SACRED  SEASONS  93 

the  first  time  imparted  to  the  baptized,  and  of  which  no  men 
tion  was  to  be  made  to  the  profane,  is  uncertain.  Such  usages 
were  wide-spread  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  Already  in 
the  third  the  forces  were  at  work  which  were  to  lead  to  the 
practices. 

Sunday  was  the  chief  occasion  of  worship,  yet  services  were 
beginning  to  be  held  on  week-days  as  well.  Wednesday  and 
Friday,  as  earlier  (ante,  p.  43),  were  days  of  fasting.  The  great 
event  of  the  year  was  the  Easter  season.  The  period  immedi 
ately  before  was  one  of  fasting  in  commemoration  of  Christ's 
sufferings.  Customs  differed  in  various  parts  of  the  empire. 
In  Rome  a  forty  hours'  fast  and  vigil  was  held  in  remembrance 
of  Christ's  rest  in  the  grave.  This  was  extended,  by  the  time 
of  the  Council  of  Nicsea  (325)  to  a  forty  days  Lent.  All  fasting 
ended  with  the  dawn  of  Easter  morning,  and  the  Pentecostal 
period  of  rejoicing  then  began.  In  that  time  there  was  no 
fasting,  or  kneeling  in  prayer  in  public  worship.1  Easter  eve 
was  the  favorite  season  for  baptism,  that  the  newly  initiate 
might  participate  in  the  Easter  joy.  Beside  these  fixed  seasons, 
the  martyrs  were  commemorated  with  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  annually  on  the  days  of  their  deaths.2  Prayers  for  the 
dead  in  general,  and  their  remembrance  by  offerings  on  the 
anniversaries  of  their  decease,  were  in  use  by  the  early  part  of 
the  third  century.3  Relics  of  martyrs  had  been  held  in  high 
veneration  since  the  middle  of  the  second  century.4  The  full 
development  of  saint-worship  had  not  yet  come;  but  the 
church  was  honoring  with  peculiar  devotion  the  memory  of 
the  athletes  of  the  Christian  race  who  had  not  counted  their 
lives  dear  unto  themselves. 

SECTION  XIII.      BAPTISM 

Baptism  is  older  than  Christianity.  The  rite  gave  to  John, 
the  "Forerunner,"  his  name.  He  baptized  Jesus.  His  dis 
ciples  and  those  of  Jesus  baptized,  though  Jesus  Himself  did 
not.5  The  origin  of  the  rite  is  uncertain ;  but  it  was  probably 

1  Tertullian,  Corona,  3. 

-  Letter  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna  on  Martyrdom  of  Polycarp,  18 ;  Cyprian, 
Letters,  33-393;  36-122. 

3  Tertullian,  Corona,  3  ;  Monogamy,  10. 

4  Letter  of  Smyrna,  as  cited,  18. 

5  John  322,  41-  2.  « 


94       .      DOCTRINE  REGARDING  BAPTISM 

a  spiritualization  of  the  old  Levitical  washings.  Jewish  teaching, 
traceable  probably  to  a  period  as  early  as  the  time  of  Christ, 
required  proselytes  to  the  Hebrew  faith  not  merely  to  be  cir 
cumcised,  but  to  be  baptized.1  It  seems  probable  that  John 
did  not  invent  the  rite,  and  simply  used  contemporary  practice. 
It  was  a  fitting  symbol  of  the  spiritual  purification  that  fol 
lowed  the  repentance  that  he  preached.  The  mystery  religions 
had  equivalent  rites  (ante,  p.  10) ;  but  so  purely  Jewish  was 
that  primitive  Christianity  to  which  baptism  belongs,  that  it 
is  inconceivable  that  they  should  have  had  any  effect  on  the 
origin  of  the  practice,  though  they  were  profoundly  to  influence 
its  development  on  Gentile  soil.  Peter  represents  baptism  as 
the  rite  of  admission  to  the  church,  and  to  the  reception  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.2  As  the  sacrament  of  admission  baptism  al 
ways  stood  till  the  religious  divisions  of  post-Reformation 
days.  It  so  stands  for  the  vast  majority  of  Christians  at 
present. 

With  Paul,  baptism  was  not  merely  the  symbol  of  cleansing 
from  sin,3  it  involved  a  new  relation  to  Christ,4  and  a  participa 
tion  in  His  death  and  resurrection.5  Though  Paul  apparently 
did  not  think  baptism  essential  to  salvation6  his  view  approached 
that  of  the  initiations  of  the  mystery  religions  and  his  con 
verts  in  Corinth,  at  least,  held  an  almost  magical  conception 
of  the  rite,  being  baptized  in  behalf  of  their  dead  friends, 
that  the  departed  might  be  benefited  thereby.7  Baptism  soon 
came  to  be  regarded  as  indispensable.  The  writer  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  represented  Christ  as  declaring :  "  Verily,  I  say 
unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  the  Kingdom  of  God."  8  The  appendix  to  Mark 
pictured  the  risen  Christ  as  saying :  "  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved."9  This  conviction  but  deepened.  To 
Hernias  (115-140),  baptism  was  the  very  foundation  of  the 
church,  which  "is  builded  upon  waters."  10  Even  to  the  phil 
osophical  Justin  (153)  baptism  effected  "regeneration"  and 
"illumination."  n  In  Tertullian's  estimate  it  conveyed  eternal 
life  itself.12 

1  See  Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  Judischen  Volkes,  2569-573. 

2  Acts  23" ;  see  also  2" ;  1  Cor.  1213.          3 1  Cor.  611.  4  Gal  32«.  27. 
6  Romans  64 ;  Col.  212.                                 6  1  Cor.  I14-17.  7 1  Cor.  1529. 
8  John  35.                                                    9  Mark  1616.  10  Vis.,  33. 

11  Apology,  61 ;  Ayer,  p.  33.  12  Baptism,  1. 


BAPTISMAL  REGENERATION:   INFANT  BAPTISM  95 

By  the  time  of  Hermas1  and  of  Justin2  the  view  was  general 
that  baptism  washed  away  all  previous  sins.  As  in  the  mystery 
religions  it  had  become  the  great  rite  of  purification,  initiation, 
and  rebirth  into  the  eternal  life.  Hence  it  could  be  received 
but  once.  The  only  substitute  was  martyrdom,  "  which  stands 
in  lieu  of  the*  fontal  bathing,  when  that  has  not  been  received, 
and  restores  it  when  lost."3  With  the  early  disciples  generally 
baptism  was  "in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ."  4  There  is  no 
mention  of  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity  in  the  New 
Testament,  except  in  the  command  attributed  to  Christ  in 
Matt.  2819.  That  text  is  early,  however.  It  underlies  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  and  the  practice  recorded  in  the  Teaching ,5 
and  by  Justin.6  The  Christian  leaders  of  the  third  century  re 
tained  the  recognition  of  the  earlier  form,  and,  in  Rome  at  least, 
baptism  in  the  name  of  Christ  was  deemed  valid,  if  irregular, 
certainly  from  the  time  of  Bishop  Stephen  (254-257). 7 

Regarding  persons  baptized,  the  strong  probability  is  that, 
till  past  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  they  were  those  only 
of  years  of  discretion.  The  first  mention  of  infant  baptism,  and 
an  obscure  one,  was  about  185,  by  Irenaeus.8  Tertullian  spoke 
distinctly  of  the  practice,  but  discouraged  it  as  so  serious  a  step 
that  delay  of  baptism  was  desirable  till  character  was  formed. 
Hence  he  doubted  its  wisdom  for  the  unmarried.9  Less  earnest 
men  than  Tertullian  felt  that  it  was  unwise  to  use  so  great  an 
agency  of  pardon  till  one's  record  of  sins  was  practically  made 
up.  A  conspicuous  instance,  by  no  means  solitary,  was  the 
Emperor  Constantine,  who  postponed  his  baptism  till  his 
death-bed.  To  Origen  infant  baptism  was  an  apostolic  cus 
tom.10  Cyprian  favored  its  earliest  possible  reception.11  Why 
infant  baptism  arose  there  is  no  certain  evidence.  Cyprian, 
in  the  letter  just  cited,  argued  in  its  favor  from  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin.  Yet  the  older  general  opinion  seems  to  have  held 
to  the  innocency  of  childhood.12  More  probable  explanations 
are  the  feeling  that  outside  the  church  there  is  no  salvation, 
and  the  words  attributed  to  Christ  in  John  35.  Christian  par- 

1  Man.,  43.  2  Apology,  61.  3  Tertullian,  Baptism,  16. 

4  Acts  238 ;  see  also  816,  1048,  196 ;  Romans  63 ;  Gal.  327. 

6  Teaching,  7 ;  Ayer,  p.  38.  6  Apology,  61 ;  Ayer,  p.  33. 

7  Cyprian,  Letters,  73-746.  8  Heresies,  2  :  22 4. 

9  Baptism,  18.  10  Com.  on  Romans,  5. 

11  Letters,  5S-646.  u  Tertullian,  Baptism,  18. 


96  MODE  OF  BAPTISM 

ents  would  not  have  their  children  fail  of  entering  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  Infant  baptism  did  not,  however,  become  universal 
till  the  sixth  century,  largely  through  the  feeling  already  noted 
in  Tertullian,  that  so  cleansing  a  sacrament  should  not  be 
lightly  used. 

As  to  the  method  of  baptism,  it  is  probable  that  the  original 
form  was  by  immersion,  complete  or  partial.  That  is  implied 
in  Romans  64  and  Colossians  212.  Pictures  in  the  catacombs 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  submersion  was  not  always 
complete.  The  fullest  early  evidence  is  that  of  the  Teaching: 
"  Baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  living  [running]  water.  But  if  thou  hast  not 
living  water,  then  baptize  in  other  water ;  and  if  thou  art  not 
able  in  cold,  then  in  warm.  But  if  thou  hast  neither,  then 
pour  water  upon  the  head  thrice  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and 
of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."1  Affusion  was,  therefore, 
a  recognized  form  of  baptism.  Cyprian  cordially  upheld  it.2 
Immersion  continued  the  prevailing  practice  till  the  late 
Middle  Ages  in  the  West;  in  the  East  it  so  remains.  The 
Teaching  and  Justin  show  that  fasting  and  an  expression  of 
belief,  together  with  an  agreement  to  live  the  Christian  life 
were  necessary  prerequisites.  By  the  time  of  Tertullian  an 
elaborate  ritual  had  developed.  The  ceremony  began  with  the 
formal  renunciation  by  the  candidate  of  the  devil  and  all  his 
works.  Then  followed  the  threefold  immersion.  On  coming 
from  the  fount  the  newly  baptized  tasted  a  mixture  of  milk 
and  honey,  in  symbolism  of  his  condition  as  a  new-born  babe 
in  Christ.  To  that  succeeded  anointing  with  oil  and  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  baptizer  in  token  of  the  reception 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.3  Baptism  and  what  was  later  known  as 
confirmation  were  thus  combined.  Tertullian  also  shows  the 
earliest  now  known  existence  of  Christian  sponsors,  i.  e.,  god 
parents.4  The  same  customs  of  fasting  and  sponsors  charac 
terized  the  worship  of  Isis. 

In  the  apostolic  age  baptism  was,  administered  doubtless 
not  only  by  Apostles  and  other  leaders,  but  widely  by  those 
charismatically  eminent  in  the  church.  By  110-117  Ignatius, 
in  the  interest  of  unity,  was  urging,  "it  is  not  lawful  apart 

/ 

1  7  ;  Ayer,  p.  38.  2  Letters,  75-6912. 

3  Tertullian,  Baptism,  6-8 ;  Corona,  3.  4  Baptism,  18. 


VALID  BAPTISM  97 

from  the  bishop  either  to  baptize  or  to  hold  a  love-feast."1 
In  Tertullian's  time,  "  of  giving  it,  the  chief  priest,  who  is  the 
bishop,  has  the  right;  in  the  next  place  the  presbyters  and 
deacons  .  .  .  besides  these  even  laymen  have  the  right,  for 
what  is  equally  received  can  be  equally  given."2  In  the  Greek 
and  Roman  Cfeurches  baptism  still  continues  the  only  sacrament 
which  any  Christian,  or  indeed  any  seriously  intending  person, 
can  administer  in  case  of  necessity. 

The  middle  of  the  third  century  saw  a  heated  discussion  over 
the  validity  of  heretical  baptism.  Tertullian  had  regarded  it 
as  worthless;3  and  his  was  undoubtedly  the  prevalent  opinion 
of  his  time.  After  the  Novatian  schism  (see  p.  102)  Bishop 
Stephen  of  Rome  (254-257)  advanced  the  claim  that  baptism, 
even  by  heretics,  was  effectual  if  done  in  proper  form.  His 
motives  seem  to  have  been  partly  the  growing  feeling  that 
sacraments  are  of  value  in  themselves,  irrespective  of  the  char 
acter  of  the  administrant,  and  partly  a  desire  to  facilitate  the 
return  of  the  followers  of  Novatian.  This  interpretation  was 
energetically  resisted  by  Cyprian  of  Carthage,  and  Firmilian 
of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,4  and  led  to  certain  important  asser 
tions  of  the  authority  of  the  Roman  bishop.  The  deaths  of 
Stephen  and  Cyprian  gave  a  pause  to  the  dispute;  but  the 
Roman  view  grew  into  general  acceptance  in  the  West.  The 
East  reached  no  such  unanimity  of  judgment. 

SECTION  XIV.      THE    LORD'S    SUPPER 

Some  account  has  been  given  of  the  early  development  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  (ante,  pp.  23,  40).  It  has 
been  seen  that  "breaking  of  bread,"  in  connection  with  a  com 
mon  meal,  was  a  Christian  practice  from  the  beginning.  From 
the  time  of  Paul,  certainly,  it  was  believed  to  be  by  command 
of  Christ  Himself,  and  in  peculiar  remembrance  of  Him  and  of 
His  death.  Outside  the  New  Testament  three  writers  refer 
to  the  Lord's  Supper  before  the  age  of  Irenseus.  Of  these  the 
account  in  the  Teaching?  reflects  the  most  primitive  Christian 
conditions.  It  provides  a  simple  liturgy  of  gratitude.  Thou 
"didst  bestow  upon  us  spiritual  food  and  drink  and  eternal  life 

1  Smyrna,,  8 ;  Ayer,  p.  42.  2  Baptism,  17 ;  Ayer,  p.  167. 

3  Baptism,  15.  «  Cyprian,  Letters,  09-76. 

5  9-11;  Ayer,  p.  38. 


98         CHRIST'S  PRESENCE  IN  THE  SUPPER 

through  Thy  Son."  From  Christ  come  "life  and  knowledge." 
A  more  mystical  explanation  of  the  Supper,  however,  began 
early.  John  647'58  teaches  the  necessity  of  eating  the  flesh  and 
drinking  the  blood  of  Christ  to  have  "life."  To  Ignatius  the 
Supper  "is  the  medicine  of  immortality,  and  the  antidote  that 
we  should  not  die  but  live  forever."  l  Justin  affirmed,  "for 
not  as  common  bread  and  common  drink  do  we  receive  these ; 
but  in  like  manner  as  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,  having  been 
made  flesh  by  the  Word  of  God,  had  both  flesh  and  blood  for 
our  salvation,  so  likewise  have  we  been  taught  that  the  food 
which  is  blessed  by  the  prayer  of  His  Word,  and  from  which 
our  blood  and  flesh  by  transmutation  are  nourished,  is  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  that  Jesus  who  was  made  flesh."  2  By  Justin's 
time  (153)  the  Lord's  Supper  was  already  separated  from  the 
common  meal.  Irenseus  continued  and  developed  the  thought 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  and  of  Ignatius  that  the  Supper  confers 
"life."  "For  as  the  bread,  which  is  produced  from  the  earth, 
when  it  receives  the  invocation  of  God,  is  no  longer  common 
bread  but  the  Eucharist,  consisting  of  two  realities,  earthly  and 
heavenly ;  so  also  our  bodies,  when  they  receive  the  Eucharist, 
are  no  longer  corruptible,  having  the  hope  of  the  resurrec 
tion  to  eternity."  3  In  how  far  these  conceptions  were  due 
to  the  mystery  religions,  with  their  teaching  that  sharing  a 
meal  with  the  god  is  to  become  a  partaker  of  the  divine  nature, 
is  difficult  to  decide;  but  they  undoubtedly  grew  out  of  the 
same  habit  of  thought.  It  may  be  said  that,  by  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  the  conception  of  a  real  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  Supper  was  wide-spread.  It  was  stronger  in  the  West 
than  in  the  East,  but  ultimately  it  won  its  way  also  there. 

In  early  Christian  thought  not  only  were  believers  them 
selves  "a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  to  God,"  4  but  all 
actions  of  worship  were  sacrificial.  The  leaders  of  the  church 
"offered  the  gifts  of  the  bishop's  office."  5  All  its  membership 
could  "do  good  and  communicate,"  "for  with  such  sacrifices 
God  is  well  pleased."6  In  particular,  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
a  "  sacrifice," 7  and  this  feeling  was  doubtless  strengthened  by 
the  circumstance  that  it  was  the  occasion  of  the  gifts  of  the 

1  Eph.,  20.  2  Apology,  66 ;  Ayer,  p.  34. 

3  Heresies,  4  : 185 ;  Ayer,  pp.  138,  139.  4  Romans  121. 

5 1  Clem.,  44;  Ayer,  p.  37.  6  Heb.  1316. 
7  Teaching,  14 ;  Ayer,  p.  41. 


THE  SUPPER  A  SACRIFICE  99 

congregation  for  those  in  need.1  As  late  a  writer  as  Irenseus, 
while  viewing  the  Lord's  Supper  as  pre-eminently  a  "sacrifice," 
still  held  that  all  Christian  actions  are  also  of  a  sacrificial 
character.2  Christianity,  however,  was  in  a  world  where  sacri 
ficial  conceptions  of  a  much  more  definite  nature  were  familiar 
in  the  religions  on  every  hand.  Sacrifice  demands  a  priest. 
With  Tertullian  the  term  sacerdos  first  comes  into  full  use.3 

With  Cyprian  the  developed  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
as  a  sacrifice  offered  to  God  by  a  priest  has  been  fully  reached. 
"For  if  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord  and  God,  is  Himself  the  chief 
priest  of  God  the  Father,  and  has  first  offered  Himself  a  sacri 
fice  to  the  Father,  and  has  commanded  this  to  be  done  in  com 
memoration  of  Himself,  certainly  that  priest  truly  discharges 
the  office  of  Christ,  who  imitates  that  which  Christ  did ;  and 
he  then  offers  a  true  and  full  sacrifice  in  the  church  when  he 
proceeds  to  offer  it  according  to  what  he  sees  Christ  Himself 
to  have  offered."  4  The  business  of  the  Christian  priest  is 
"to  serve  the  altar  and  to  celebrate  the  divine  sacrifices."5 
Already  by  Tertullian's  time  the  Lord's  Supper  was  held  in 
commemoration  of  the  dead.6  Cyprian  shows  such  "sacri 
fices"  for  martyrs.7  The  sense  of  the  life-giving  quality  of 
the  Supper  led,  also,  to  the  custom  of  infant  communion,  of 
which  Cyprian  is  a  witness.8  Here,  as  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  physical  presence,  the  conception  of  the  Supper  as  a 
sacrifice  to  God  was  earlier  in  the  West  than  in  the  East.  It 
did  not  become  general  in  the  Orient  much  before  300.  With 
it  the  "Catholic"  conception  of  the  Supper  was  evident  as 
(a)  a  sacrament  in  which  Christ  is  really  present  (the  how  of 
that  presence  was  not  to  be  much  discussed  till  the  Middle 
Ages),  and  in  which  the  believer  partakes  of  Christ,  being 
thereby  brought  into  union  with  Him  and  built  up  to  the  im 
mortal  life ;  and  (b)  a  sacrifice  offered  to  God  by  a  priest  and 
inclining  God  to  be  gracious  to  the  living  and  the  dead.  Much 
was  still  left  obscure,  but  the  essentials  of  the  "Catholic"  view 
were  already  at  hand  by  253. 

1  Justin,  Apology,  67;  Ayer,  p.  35.  2  Heresies,  4  :  175,  IS3. 

3  Baptism,  17  ;  Ayer,  p.  167.  *  Letters,  62-6314. 

6  Ibid.,  671.  6  Chastity,  11. 

7  Letters,  33-S93.  8  Lapsed,  25. 


100  WHAT  SINS  CAN  BE  FORGIVEN 

SECTION   XV.      FORGIVENESS   OF  SINS 

The  general  view  of  early  Christianity  was  that  "  if  we  con 
fess  our  sins,  He  is  faithful  and  righteous  to  forgive  us  our 
sins."  l  But  there  were  sins  so  bad  that  they  could  not  be  for 
given,  they  were  "unto  death."2  Just  what  this  "sin  unto 
death"  might  be,  was  uncertain.  It  was  one  opinion  that  it 
was  rejection  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Mark  represents  Christ  as 
saying :  "  Whosoever  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Spirit 
hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an  eternal  sin"  (329). 
The  Teaching  held  that  "any  prophet  speaking  in  the  Spirit, 
ye  shall  not  try  neither  discern;  for  every  sin  shall  be  for 
given,  but  this  sin  shall  not  be  forgiven."3  The  general  feel 
ing  was,  however,  that  the  unforgivable  sins  were  idolatry  or 
denial  of  the  faith,  murder,  and  gross  licentiousness.  The 
first-named  was  specially  hopeless.  No  severer  denunciations 
can  be  found  in  the  New  Testament  than  those  directed  by  the 
writer  of  Hebrews  toward  such  as  "crucify  to  themselves  the 
Son  of  God  afresh"  (64'8,  1026'31).  To  Tertullian  the  "deadly 
sins"  were  seven,  "idolatry,  blasphemy,  murder,  adultery, 
fornication,  false-witness  and  fraud."  4 

While,  by  the  time  of  Hermas  (115-140),  baptism  was  re 
garded  as  cleansing  all  previous  sins,  those  committed  after  it, 
of  the  class  just  described,  were  "deadly."  But  the  tendency 
was  toward  some  modification  of  this  strictffc^s.  The  burden 
of  Hermas  was  that,  by  exception,  in  view  of  the  near  end  of 
the  world,  one  further  repentance  had  been  granted  after  bap 
tism.5  This  extended  even  to  adultery.6  Yet  church  prac 
tice  was  elsewhere  milder,  in  the  second  century,  than  church 
theory.  Irenaeus  gives  an  account  of  the  reclaiming  of  an 
adulteress,  who  "spent  her  whole  time  in  the  exercise  of  public 
confession."  7  In  Tertullian's  time  the  feeling  was  that  there 
was  one  repentance  possible  for  deadly  sins  after  baptism — 
"a  second  reserve  of  aid  against  hell"-  -  "now  once  for  all, 
because  now  for  the  second  time,  but  never  more."  8  Restora 
tion  was  to  be,  if  at  all,  only  after  a  humiliating  public  confes 
sion,  an  "exomologesis,"  "to  feed  prayers  on  fastings,  to  groan, 
to  weep  and  make  outcries  unto  the  Lord  your  God ;  to  bow 

1 1  John  I9.  2  Ibid.,  516.  3 11 ;  Ayer,  p.  40. 

4  Against  Marcion,  49.  5  Man.,  43 ;  Ayer,  pp.  43,  44. 

6  Ibid.,  41.  7  Heresies,  1 :  135.     8  Repentance,  7,  12. 


PEXAXCE  AND  RESTORATION  101 

before  the  feet  of  the  presbyters,  and  kneel  to  God's  dear 
ones."  l  Yet  practice  was  far  from  universally  as  rigorous  as 
Tertullian  would  imply. 

The  question  inevitably  arose  as  to  when  a  sinner  had  done 
enough  to  be  restored.  The  feeling  appeared  early  that  the 
absolving  pdwer  was  divinely  lodged  in  the  congregation.2 
This  authority  was  also  regarded  as  directly  committed  to 
Peter,;  and,  by  implication,  to  church  officers,  when  such  devel 
oped.3  But,  curiously,  a  double  practice  prevailed.  About  to 
be  martyrs  and  confessors,  i.  e,,  those  who  endured  tortures 
or  imprisonment  for  their  faith,  were  deemed  also  able  to  ab 
solve  because  filled  with  the  Spirit.4  This  twofold  authority 
led  to  abuse.  Many  of  the  confessors  were  lax.  Cyprian,  in 
particular,  had  trouble  on  this  score.5  Naturally  bishops  tried 
to  repress  this  right  of  confessors ;  but  it  remained  a  popular 
opinion  till  the  cessation  of  persecution.  Absolution  ultimately 
raised  the  question  of  a  scale  of  penance,  a  standard  as  to  when 
enough  had  been  done  to  justify  forgiveness,  but  that  develop 
ment  is  beyond  the  limits  of  the  present  period.  It  is  not  to 
be  found  till  about  300. 

These  restorations,  which  were  particularly  of  the  licentious,6 
were  deemed  exceptional,  however  common ;  and  it  came  as 
a  shock,  at  least  to  a  rigid  Montanist  ascetic  like  Tertullian, 
when  the  aggressive  Roman  bishop,  Kallistos  (217-222),  (ante, 
p.  75),  who  had  himself  been  a  confessor,  issued  a  declaration 
in  his  own  name,  which  is  a  landmark  in  the  development  of 
papal  authority,  that  he  would  absolve  sins  of  the  flesh  on  a 
proper  repentance.7  This  was  an  official  breach  in  the  popular 
list  of  "sins  unto  death,"  whatever  actual  breach  earlier  prac 
tice  may  have  made. 

In  common  judgment,  denial  of  the  faith  was  the  worst  of 
these  offenses,  and  not  even  Kallistos  had  promised  pardon 
for  that.  The  question  was  raised  on  a  tremendous  scale  by 
the  Decian  persecution.  Thousands  lapsed  and  sought  res 
toration  after  the  storm  was  over.  In  Rome,  Bishop  Fabian 
died  a  martyr  in  250.  The  Roman  Church  was  rent  on  the 
question  of  their  treatment.  A  dispute  beginning  in  personal 
antipathies,  not  at  first  involving  the  lapsed,  resulted  in  the 

1  Repentance,  9.  2  Matt.  1815-1S.  3  Ibid.,  1G1*.  19. 

4  Tertullian,  Modesty,  22.       6  Letters,  17-20,  20-21,  21-22,  22-27. 
6  Tertullian,  Modesty,  22.       '  Tertullian,  Modesty,  1. 


102  ALL  SINS  MAY  BE  FORGIVEN 

choice  by  the  majority  of  Cornelius,  a  comparative  nobody,  as 
bishop  over  Novatian,  the  most  distinguished  theologian  in 
Rome  (ante,  p.  75).  The  minority  supported  Novatian.  The 
majority  soon  advocated  the  milder  treatment  of  the  lapsed, 
while  Novatian  advanced  to  the  rigorist  position.  Novatian 
began  a  schism  that  lasted  till  the  seventh  century,  and 
founded  protesting  churches  wide-spread  in  the  empire.  He 
renewed  the  older  practice  and  denied  restoration  to  all  guilty 
of  "sins  unto  death."  His  was  a  lost  cause.  Synods  in  Rome 
and  Carthage  in  251  and  253,  representative  of  the  majority, 
permitted  the  restoration  of  the  lapsed,  under  strict  conditions 
of  penance.  Though  the  question  was  to  arise  again  in  the 
persecution  under  Diocletian,  which  began  in  303,1  and  though 
varied  practice  long  continued  in  different  parts  of  the  church, 
the  decision  in  Rome  in  251  was  ultimately  regulative.  All  sins 
were  thereby  forgivable.  The  old  distinction  continued  in  name, 
but  it  was  henceforth  only  between  great  sins  and  small. 

SECTION  XVI.      THE  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  CHURCH  AND 
THE   HIGHER  AND   LOWER  MORALITY 

In  apostolic  times  the  church  was  undoubtedly  conceived 
as  composed  exclusively  of  experiential  Christians.2  There 
were  bad  men  who  needed  discipline  in  it,3  but  Paul  could  paint 
an  ideal  picture  of  the  church  as  "not  having  spot  or  wrinkle 
or  any  such  thing."  4  It  was  natural  that  this  should  be  so. 
Christianity  came  as  a  new  faith.  Those  who  embraced  it 
did  so  as  a  result  of  personal  conviction,  and  at  the  cost  of  no 
little  sacrifice.  It  was  long  the  feeling  that  the  church  is  a 
community  of  saved  men  and  women.  Even  then,  it  was  true 
that  many  were  unworthy.  This  is  Hermas's  complaint.  The 
oldest  sermon  outside  the  New  Testament  has  a  modern  sound. 
"  For  the  Gentiles  when  they  hear  from  our  mouth  the  oracles 
of  God,  marvel  at  them  for  their  beauty  and  greatness ;  then, 
when  they  discover  that  our  works  are  not  worthy  of  the  words 
which  we  speak,  forthwith  they  betake  themselves  to  blasphemy, 
saying  that  it  is  an  idle  story  and  a  delusion."  5  Yet,  in  spite 
of  the  recognition  of  these  facts  the  theory  continued.  But  the 

1  The  Melitian  schism,  Donatists. 

2  Romans  I7;  1  Cor.  1*;  2  Cor.  I1;  Col.  I2. 

3  E.  g.,  I  Cor.  51-13.  4  Eph.  527.  6  2  Clem.,  13. 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  CHURCH     103 

increasing  age  of  Christianity  forced  a  change  of  view.  By 
the  beginning  of  the  third  century  there  were  many  whose 
parents,  possibly  remoter  ancestors,  had  been  experiential 
Christians,  but  who,  though  they  attended  public  worship, 
were  Christians  in  little  more  than  in  name.  What  were  they  ? 
They  did  no^  worship  with  the  heathen.  The  public  regarded 
them  as  Christians.  Some  of  them  had  been  baptized  in  in 
fancy/  Had  the  church  a  place  for  them?  Their  numbers 
were  such  that  the  church  was  compelled  to  feel  that  it  had. 
Its  own  conception  of  itself  was  altering  from  that  of  a  com 
munion  of  saints  to  that  of  an  agency  for  salvation.  This 
change  was  evident  in  the  teaching  of  Bishop  Kallistos  of  Rome 
(217-222).  He  cited  the  parable  of  the  tares  and  the  wheat,1 
and  compared  the  church  to  the  ark  of  Noah  in  which  were 
"things  clean  and  unclean."  The  earlier  and  later  theories 
thus  indicated  divide  the  allegiance  of  modern  Christendom 
to  this  day. 

The  rejection  of  the  Montanists  and  the  decay  of  the  expec 
tation  of  the  speedy  end  of  the  world  undoubtedly  greatly  fa 
vored  the  spread  of  worldliness  in  the  church — a  tendency  much 
increased  by  its  rapid  growth  from  heathen  converts  between 
202  and  250.  As  common  Christian  practice  became  less 
strenuous,  however,  asceticism  grew  as  the  ideal  of  the  more 
serious.  Too  much  must  not  be  expected  of  common  Chris 
tians.  The  Teaching,  in  the  .first  half  of  the  second  century, 
had  exhorted :  "If  thou  art  able  to  bear  the  whole  yoke  of  the 
Lord,  thou  shalt  be  perfect ;  but  if  thou  art  not  able,  do  that 
which  thou  art  able"  (6).  Hermas  (115-140)  had  taught  that 
a  man  could  do  more  than  God  commanded,  and  would  receive 
a  proportionate  reward.3  These  tendencies  but  increased. 
They  were,  however,  greatly  furthered  by  a  distinction  be 
tween  the  "advice"  and  the  requirements  of  the  Gospel,  which 
was  clearly  drawn  by  Tertullian4  and  Origen.5 

While  the  requirements  of  Christianity  are  binding  on  all 
Christians,  the  advice  is  for  those  who  would  live  the  holier  life. 
On  two  main  phases  of  conduct  the  Gospel  was  thought  to 
give  such  counsels  of  perfection.  Christ  said  to  the  rich  young 
man:  "If  thou  wouldest  be  perfect,  go,  sell  that  thou  hast, 
and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven."  6 

1  Matt.  1324-30.  2  Hippolytus,  Refutation,  97.  3  Sim.,  52-  3. 

4  To  his  Wife,  2l.          5  Com.  on  Romans,  33.  6  Matt.  1921. 


104  HIGHER  AND  LOWER  MORALITY 

He  also  declared  that  some  are  "eunuchs  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven's  sake,"  and  that,  "in  the  resurrection  they  neither 
marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but  are  as  angels."1  Paul 
said  "to  the  unmarried  and  to  widows,  it  is  good  for  them 
if  they  abide  even  as  I."  Voluntary  poverty  and  voluntary 
celibacy  were,  therefore,  deemed  advice  impossible  of  fulfil 
ment  by  all  Christians,  indeed,  but  conferring  special  merit 
on  those  who  practised  them.  About  these  two  conceptions 
all  early  Christian  asceticism  centred,  and  they  were  to  be  the 
foundation  stones  of  monasticism  when  that  system  arose  at 
the  close  of  the  third  century.  As  the  clergy  should  set  a 
specially  good  example,  not  only  was  second  marriage  discour 
aged  from  the  sub-apostolic  age;3 but,  by  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century,  marriage  after  entering  on  office  was  deemed 
unallowable.4  The  life  of  celibacy,  poverty,  and  contempla 
tive  retirement  from  the  activities  of  the  world  was  admired 
as  the  Christian  ideal,  and  was  widely  practised,  though  as  yet 
without  separation  from  society.  The  road  to  full  monasticism 
had  been  fairly  entered.  Probably  the  most  unfortunate  as 
pect  of  this  double  ideal  was  that  it  tended  to  discourage  the 
efforts  of  the  ordinary  Christian. 

SECTION  XVII.      REST  AND   GROWTH,   260-303 

The  end  of  the  period  of  persecution  affected  by  the  edict  of 
Gallienus,  in  260,  was  followed  by  more  than  forty  years  of 
practical  peace.  Legally,  the  church  had  no  more  protection 
than  before,  and  the  able  Emperor  Aurelian  (270-275)  is  said 
to  have  intended  a  renewal  of  persecution  when  prevented  by 
death.  Even  with  him  it  apparently  did  not  come  to  the 
proclamation  of  a  new  hostile  edict.  The  chief  feature  of  this 
epoch  was  the  rapid  growth  of  Christianity.  By  300  Christi- 
anity  was  effectively  represented  in  all  parts  of  the  empire. 
Its  distribution  was  very  unequal,  but  it  was  influential  in  the 
central  provinces  of  political  importance,  in  Asia  Minor,  Mace 
donia,  Syria,  Egypt,  northern  Africa,  central  Italy,  southern 
Gaul  and  Spain.  Nor  was  its  upward  progress  in  the  social 

1  Matt.,  1912,  2230.  2 1  Cor.  78. 

3 1  Tim.  32,  see  also  Hermas,  Man.,  44,  against  second  marriage  of 
Christians  in  general. 

4  Hippolytus,  Refutation,  97. 


RAPID  GROWTH  OE  THE  CHURCH          105 

scale  less  significant.  During  this  period  it  won  many  officers 
of  government  and  imperial  servants.  Most  important  of  all, 
^it  began  now  to  penetrate  the  army  on  a  considerable  scale. 
As  late  as  246-248  the  best  that  Origen  could  say  in  reply  to 
Celsus's  criticism  that  Christians  failed  of  their  duty  to  the 
state  by  refusal  of  army  service,  was  that  Christians  did  a 
better  thing  by  praying  for  the  success  of  the  Emperor.1  Origen 
also  expresses  and  defends  Christian  unwillingness  to  assume 
the  burdens  of  governmental  office.2  P>en  then  Christians  had 
long  been  found  in  the  Roman  armies;3  but  Origen  undoubt 
edly  voiced  prevalent  Christian  feeling  in  the  middle  of  the 
third  century.  By  its  end  both  Christian  feeling  and  practice 
had  largely  changed. 

This  period  of  rapid  growth  was  one  of  greatly  increasing 
conformity  to  worldly  influences  also.  How  far  this  sometimes 
went  a  single  illustration  may  show.  The  Council  of  Elvira, 
now  Granada,  in  Spain  (c.  313),  provided  that  Christians  who 
as  magistrates  wore  the  garments  of  heathen  priesthood  could 
be  restored  after  two  years'  penance,  provided  they  had  not 
actually  sacrificed  or  paid  for  sacrifice.4 

As  compared  with  the  first  half  of  the  third  century,  its 
latter  portion  was  a  period  of  little  literary  productivity  or 
theologic  originality  in  Christian  circles.  No  names  of  the 
first  rank  appeared.  The  most  eminent  was  that  of  Dionysius, 
who  held  the  bishopric  of  Alexandria  (247-264),  a  pupil  of  Origen 
and  like  him  for  a  time  head  of  the  famous  catechetical  school. 
Through  his  writings  the  influence  of  Origen  was  extended, 
and  the  great  theologian's  thoughts  were  in  general  dominant 
in  that  period  in  the  East.  Dionysius  combated  the  wide 
spread  Eastern  Sabellianism.  He  also  began  the  practice  of 
sending  letters  to  his  clergy,  notifying  them  of  the  date  of 
Easter — a  custom  soon  largely  developed  by  the  greater  bish 
oprics,  and  made  the  vehicle  of  admonition,  doctrinal  defini 
tion,  and  controversy.  Beside  the  Sabellianism,  which  Dio 
nysius  combated,  Dynamic  Monarchianism  was  vigorously  rep 
resented  in  Antioch  by  Paul  of  Samosata  till  272  (ante,  p.  72). 
This  administratively  gifted  bishop  held  a  high  executive  posi 
tion  under  Zenobia,  Queen  of  Palmyra,  to  whom  Antioch  be 
longed  for  a  period  before  her  overthrow  by  the  Emperor 

1  Celsus,  S73.  2  7&4/.,  875. 

3  E.g.,  Tertullian,  Corona,  1. 


v/ 

106  NEO-PLATONISM 

Aurelian.  Paul's  opponents,  being  unable  to  deprive  him  of 
possession  of  the  church  building,  appealed  to  Aurelian,  who 
decided  that  it  rightfully  belonged  to  "  those  to  whom  the 
bishops  of  Italy  and  of  the  city  of  Rome  should  adjudge  it."  1 
Doubtless  Aurelian  was  moved  by  political  considerations  in 
this  adjudication,  but  this  Christian  reference  to  imperial  au 
thority,  and  the  Emperor's  deference  to  the  judgment  of  Rome 
were  significant. 

With  Antioch  of  this  period  is  to  be  associated  the  foundation 
of  a  school  of  theology  by  Lucian,  of  whom  little  is  known  of 
biographical  detail,  save  that  he  was  a  presbyter,  held  aloof 
from  the  party  in  Antioch  which  opposed  and  overcame  Paul 
of  Samosata,  taught  there  from  c.  275  to  c.  303,  and  died  a 
martyr's  death  in  312.  Arius  and  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  were 
his  pupils,  and  the  supposition  is  probable  that  his  views  were 
largely  reproduced  in  them.  Like  Origen,  he  busied  himself 
with  textual  and  exegetical  labors  on  the  Scriptures,  but  had 
little  liking  for  the  allegorizing  methods  of  the  great  Alexan 
drian.  A  simpler,  more  grammatical  and  historical  method 
of  treatment  both  of  text  and  doctrine  characterized  his  teach 
ing. 

SECTION  XVIII.      KIVAL  RELIGIOUS  FORCES 

The  latter  half  of  the  third  century  was  the  period  of  the 
greatest  influence  of  Mithraism  in  the  empire.  As  the  Sol 
Inoictus,  Mithras  was  widely  worshipped,  and  this  cult  was 
popular  in  the  army  and  favored  by  the  Emperors  who  rose 
from  its  ranks.  Two  other  forces  of  importance  arose  in  the 
religious  world.  The  first  was  Neo-Platonism.  Founded  in  Al 
exandria  by  Ammonius  Saccas  ( ?-c.  245),  its  real  developer  was 
/Plotinus  (205-270),  who  settled  in  Rome  about  244.  From  him, 
the  leadership  passed  to  Porphyry  (233-304).  Neo-Platonism 
was  a  pantheistic,  mystical  interpretation  of  Platonic  thoughts. 
God  is  simple,  absolute  existence,  all  perfect,  from  whom  the 
lower  existences  come.  From  Him  the  Nous  (wO?)  emanates 
like  the  Logos  in  the  theology  of  Origen.  From  the  Nous  the 
world-soul  derives  being,  and  from  that  individual  souls.  From 
the  world-soul  the  realm  of  matter  comes.  Yet  each  stage  is 
inferior  in  the  amount  of  being  it  possesses  to  the  one  above — 

1  Eusebius,  Church  History,  7 :  3019. 


MANICH^EISM  107 

has  less  of  reality — reaching  in  gradations  from  God,  who  is 
all-perfect,  to  matter  which,  as  compared  with  Him,  is  nega 
tive.  The  morals  of  Neo-Platonism,  like  those  of  later  Greek 
philosophy  generally,  were  ascetic,  and  its  conception  of  sal 
vation  was  that  of  a  rising  of  the  soul  to  God  in  mystic  con 
templation,  the  end  of  which  was  union  with  the  divine.  Neo- 
Platonism  was  much  to  influence  Christian  theology,  notably 
that  ;of  Augustine.  Its  founders  were  not  conspicuously  or 
ganizers,  however,  and  it  remained  a  way  of  thinking  for  the 
relatively  few  rather  than  an  inclusive  association  of  the  many. 
Far  otherwise  was  it  with  a  second  movement,  that  of  Mani- 
chseism.  Its  founder,  Mani,  was  born  in  Persia  in  215  or  216, 
began  his  preaching  in  Babylon  in  242,  and  was  crucified  in 
276  or  277.  Strongly  based  on  the  old  Persian  dualism,  Mani- 
chseism  was  also  exceedingly  syncretistic.  It  received  ele 
ments  from  Zoroastrianism,  Buddhism,  Judaism,  and  Chris 
tianity.  Light  and  darkness,  good  and  evil  are  eternally  at 
war.  Its  conception  of  the  relations  of  spirit  and  matter,  and 
of  salvation,  in  many  ways  resembled  those  of  Gnosticism. 
Man  is  essentially  a  material  prison  house  of  the  realm  of  evil, 
in  which  some  portion  of  the  realm  of  light  is  confined.  Hence 
salvation  is  based  on  right  knowledge  as  to  the  nature  of  this 
bondage,  and  desire  to  return  to  the  realm  of  light,  coupled 
with  extreme  ascetic  rejection  of  all  that  belongs  to  the  sphere 
of  darkness,  especially  the  physical  appetites  and  desires.  Its 
worship  was  as  simple  as  its  asceticism  was  strict.  Its  member 
ship  was  in  two  classes,  the  perfect,  always  relatively  few,  who 
practised  its  full  austerities ;  and  the  hearers,  who  accepted  its 
teachings,  but  with  much  less  strictness  of  practice — a  distinc 
tion  not  unlike  that  between  monks  and  ordinary  Christians 
in  the  church.  Its  organization  was  fairly  centralized  and  rigid. 
In  Manichseism  Christianity  had  a  real  rival.  It^^rfead  was 
rapid  in  the  empire,  and  it  absorbed  not  <>nly^fl|w  the  fol 
lowers  of  Mithraism,  but  the  remnants  of  1  Ktian-Gnostic 
sects,  and  other  early  heresies.  Its  great  gr^o^Hfwas  to  be  in 
the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  and  its  influencejwas  to  be  felt 
till  the  late  Middle  Ages  through  sects  which  were  heirs  of  its 
teachings,  like  the  Cathari. 


V 

108     DIOCLETIAN  STRENGTHENS  THE  EMPIRE 

SECTION   XIX.      THE   FINAL  STRUGGLE 

In  284  Diocletian  became  Roman  Emperor.  A  man  of  the 
humblest  origin,  probably  of  slave  parentage,  he  had  a  dis 
tinguished  career  in  the  army,  and  was  raised  to  the  imperial 
dignity  by  his  fellow  soldiers.  Though  a  soldier-emperor,  he 
was  possessed  of  great  abilities  as  a  civil  administrator,  and 
determined  to  reorganize  the  empire  so  as  to  provide  more 
adequate  military  defense,  prevent  army  conspiracies  aiming  at 
a  change  of  Emperors,  and  render  the  internal  administration 
more  efficient.  To  these  ends  he  appointed  an  old  companion- 
in-arms,  Maximian,  regent  of  the  West,  in  285,  with  the  title 
of  Augustus,  which  Diocletian  himself  bore.  In  further  aid  of 
military  efficiency  he  designated,  in  293,  two  "Csesars" — one, 
Constantius  Chlorus,  on  the  Rhine  frontier,  and  the  other, 
Galerius,  on  that  of  the  Danube.  Each  was  to  succeed  ulti 
mately  to  the  higher  post  of  "Augustus."  All  was  held  in  har 
monious  working  by  the  firm  hand  of  Diocletian. 

In  internal  affairs  the  changes  of  Diocletian  were  no  less 
sweeping.  The  surviving  relics  of  the  old  republican  empire, 
and  of  senatorial  influence,  were  now  set  aside.  The  Emperor 
became  an  autocrat  in  the  later  Byzantine  sense.  A  new  divi 
sion  of  provinces  was  effected;  and  Rome  was  practically  aban 
doned  as  the  capital,  Diocletian  making  the  more  conveniently 
situated  Nicomedia,  in  Asia  Minor,  his  customary  residence. 
In  character  Diocletian  was  a  rude  but  firm  supporter  of 
heathenism  of  the  cruder  camp  type. 

To  such  a  man  of  organizing  abilities,  the  closely  knit,  hier 
archically  ordered  church  presented  a  serious  political  problem. 
It  must  have  seemed  a  state  within  the  state  over  which  he 
had  no  control.  Though  there  had  never  been  a  Christian  up 
rising  against  the  empire,  and  Christianity  had  held  aloof  from 
politics  to  a  remarkable  degree,  the  church  was  rapidly  growing 
in  numbers  anxLs.trength.  Two  courses  lay  open  for  a  vigorous 
ruler,  either  tjfforce  it  into  submission  and  break  its  power,  or 
to  enter  into  alliance  with  it  and  thus  secure  political  control 
of  the  growing  organism.  The  latter  was  to  be  the  method  of 
Constantine ;  the  former  the  attempt  of  Diocletian.  No  other 
course  could  be  expected  from  a  man  of  his  religious  outlook. 
The  Eastern  Caesar,  Galerius,  was  even  more  hostile  to  Chris 
tianity,  and  had  much  influence  over  Diocletian.  To  him  the 


PERSECUTION  UNDER  DIOCLETIAN         109 

suggestions  of  persecution  may  have  been  clue.  The  growth  of 
Christianity,  moreover,  was  uniting  all  the  forces  of  threatened 
heathenism  against  it;  while  Diocletian  and  Galerius  were 
disposed  to  emphasize  emperor-worship  and  the  service  of  the 
old  gods. 

Diocletian 'moved  slowly,  however.  A  cautious  effort  to  rid 
the  army  and  the  imperial  palace  service  of  Christians  was 
followed,  beginning  in  February,  303,  by  three  great  edicts  of 
persecution  in  rapid  succession.  Churches  were  ordered  de 
stroyed,  sacred  books  confiscated,  clergy  imprisoned  and  forced 
to  sacrifice  by  torture.  In  304  a  fourth  edict  required  all 
Christians  to  offer  sacrifices.  It  was  a  time  of  fearful  persecu 
tion.  As  in  the  days  of  Decius  there  were  many  martyrs,  and 
many  who  "lapsed."  Popular  feeling  was,  however,  far  less 
hostile  than  in  previous  persecutions.  The  Christians  had  be 
come  better  known.  The  severity  of  the  persecution  varied 
with  the  attitude  of  the  magistrates  by  whom  its  penalties  were 
enforced.  Cruel  in  Italy,  North  Africa,  and  the  Orient,  the 
friendly  "Csesar,"  Constantius  Chlorus,  made  apparent  com 
pliance  in  Gaul  and  Britain  by  destroying  church  edifices, 
but  left  the  Christians  themselves  unharmed.  He  thereby 
gained  a  popularity  with  those  thus  spared  that  was  to  redound 
to  the  advantage  of  his  son.  A 

The  voluntary  retirement  of  Diocletian,  and  the  enforced 
abdication  of  his  colleague,  Maximian,  in  305,  removed  the 
strong  hand  of  the  only  man  able  to  master  the  complex  gov 
ernmental  situation.)? Constantius  Chlorus  and  Galerius  now 
became,  "Augusti,"  but  in  the  appointment  of  "Caesars,"  the 
claims  of  the  sons  of  Constantius  Chlorus  and  Maximian  were 
passed  over  in  favor  of  two  proteges  of  Galerius,  Severus  and 
Maximinus  Daia.  Persecution  had  now  practically  ceased  in 
the  West.  It  continued  in  increased  severity  in  the  East. 
Constantius  Chlorus  died  in  306,  and  the  garrison  in  York  ac 
claimed  his  son  Constantine  as  Emperor.  On  the  strength  of 
this  army  support,  Constantine  forced  from  Galerius  his  own 
recognition  as  "Caesar,"  with  charge  of  Gaul,_Spain,  and  Britain. 
Soon  after  Maximian's  son,  Maxentiusr, "defeated  Severus  and 
made  himself  master  of  Italy  and  North  Africa.  The  next 
trial  of  strength  in  the  struggle  for  the  empire TtcTvhich  Con 
stantine  had  set  himself  must  be  with  Maxentius.  Its  out 
come  would  determine  the  mastery  oHhe  whole  West.  Licin- 


110  CONSTANTINE  A  CHRISTIAN 

ius,  a  protege  of  Galerius,  succeeded  to  a  portion  of  the  former 
possessions  of  Severus. 

Before  the  decisive  contest  for  the  West  took  place,  however, 
Galerius,  in  conjunction  with  Constantine  and  Licinius,  issued 
in  April,  311,  an  edict  of  toleration  to  Christians  "on  condi 
tion  that  nothing  is  done  by  them  contrary  to  discipline."  1 
This  was,  at  best,  a  grudging  concession,  though  why  it  was 
granted  at  all  by  the  persecuting  Galerius,  who  was  its  main 
source,  is  not  wholly  evident.  Perhaps  he  had  become  con 
vinced  of  the  futility  of  persecution.  Perhaps  the  long  and 
severe  illness  which  was  to  cost  him  his  life  a  few  days  later 
may  have  led  him  to  believe  that  some  help  might  come  from 
the  Christians'  God.  The  latter  supposition  is  given  added 
probability  because  the  edict  exhorts  Christians  to  pray  for 
its  authors. 

The  death  of  Galerius  in  May,  311,  left  four  contestants  for 
the  empire.  Constantine  and  Licinius  drew  together  by  mu 
tual  interest;  while  Maximinus  Daia  and  Maxentius  were 
united  by  similar  bonds.  Daia  promptly  renewed  persecution 
in  Asia  and  Egypt.  Maxentius,  while  not  a  persecutor,  was  a 
pronounced  partisan  of  heathenism.  Christian  sympathy 
naturally  flowed  toward  Constantine  and  Licinius.  Constan 
tine  availed  himself  to  the  full  of  its  advantages.  To  what 
extent  he  was  now  a  personal  Christian  it  is  impossible  to  say. 
He  had  inherited  a  kindly  feeling  toward  Christians.  He  had 
joined  in  the  edict  of  311.  His  forces  seemed  scarcely  adequate 
for  the  great  struggle  with  Maxentius.  He  doubtless  desired 
the  aid  of  the  Christians'  God  in  the  none  too  equal  cgpflict — 
though  it  is  quite  probable  that  he  may  not  then  have  thought 
of  Him  as  the  only  God.  Constan tine's  later  affirmation  that 
he  saw  a  vision  of  the  cross  with  the  inscription,  "in  this  sign 
conquer,"  was  a  conscious  or  unconscious  legend.  But  that  he 
invaded  Italy,  as  in  some  sense  a  Christian,  is  a  fact.  A  brilliant 
march  and  several  successful  battles  in  northern  Italy  brought 
him  face  to  face  with  Maxentius  at  Saxa  Rubra,  a  little  to  the 
north  of  Rome,  with  the  Mulvian  bridge  across  the  Tiber  be 
tween  his  foes  and  the  city.  There,  on  October  28,  312,  occurred 
one  of  the  decisive  struggles  of  history,  in  which  Maxentius  lost 
the  battle  and  his  life.  The  West  was  Constantine's.  The 
Christian  God,  he  believed,  had  given  him  the  victory,  and 

1  Eusebius,  Church  History,  8 : 179 ;  Ayer,  p.  262. 


EQUAL  RIGHTS  FOR  CHRISTIANITY         111 

every  Christian  impulse  was  confirmed.  He  was,  thenceforth, 
in  all  practical  respects  a  Christian,  even  though  heathen  em 
blems  still  appeared  on  coins,  and  he  retained  the  title  of 
Pontifex  Maximus. 

Probably  late  in  312  Constantine  and  Licinius  published  in 
Milan  the  great  edict  which  gave  complete  freedom  to  Chris 
tianity,  though  it  has  been  preserved  only  in  the  form  ad 
dressed  by  Licinius  to  the  Eastern  officers.1  It  was  no  longer, 
as  in"311,  one  of  toleration;  nor  did  it  make  Christianity  the 
religion  of  the  empire.  It  proclaimed  absolute  freedom  of 
conscience,  placed  Christianity  on  a  full  legal  equality  with 
any  religion  of  the  Roman  world,  and  ordered  the  restoration 
of  all  church  property  confiscated  in  the  recent  persecution. 
A  few  months  after  the  edict  was  issued,  in  April,  313,  Licinius 
decisively  defeated  the  persecutor,  Maximinus  Daia,  in  a  battle 
not  far  from  Adrianople,  which  seemed  to  the  Christians  a 
second  Mulvian  bridge.  Two  Emperors  wrere,  however,  one 
too  many.  Licinius,  defeated  by  Constantine  in  314,  held 
scarcely  more  than  a  quarter  of  the  empire.  Estranged  from 
Constantine,  the  favor  shown  by  the  latter  to  Christianity 
Licinius  increasingly  resented.  His  hostility  grew  to  persecu 
tion.  It  was,  therefore,  with  immense  satisfaction  that  the 
Christians  witnessed  his  final  defeat  in  323.  Constantine  was 
at  last  sole  ruler  of  the  Roman  world.  The  church  was  every 
where  free  from  persecution.  Its  steadfastness,  its  faith,  and 
its  organization  had  carried  it  through  its  perils.  But,  in  win 
ning  its  freedom  from  its  enemies,  it  had  come  largely  under  the 
control  of  the  occupant  of  the  Roman  imperial  throne.  A 
f atef ul  ninion  with  the  state  had  begun. 

1  Eusebius,  Church  History,  10 :  5 ;  Ayer,  p.  263. 


PERIOD  III.    THE  IMPERIAL  STATE  CHURCH 


SECTION    I.      THE   CHANGED   SITUATION 

To  Constantine's  essentially  political  mind  Christianity  was 
^[the  completion  of  the  process  of  unification  which  had  long 
been  in  progress  in  the  empire.  It  had  one  Emperor,  one  law, 
and  one  citizenship  for  all  free  men.  It  should  have  one  re 
ligion.  Constantine  moved  slowly,  however.  Though  the 
Christians  were  very  unequally  distributed  and  were  much 
more  numerous  in  the  East  than  in  the  West,  they  were  but  a 
fraction  of  the  population  when  the  Edict  of  Milan  granted 
them  equal  rights.  The  church  had  grown  with  great  rapidity 
during  the  peace  in  the  last  half  of  the  third  century,  tinder 
imperial  favor  its  increase  was  by  leaps  and  bounds.  That 
favor  Constantine  promptly  showed.  By  a  law  of  319  the 
clergy  were  exempted  from  the  public  obligations  that  weighed 
so  heavily  on  the  well-to-do  portion  of  the  population.1  In 
321  the  right  to  receive  legacies  was  granted,  and  thereby  the 
privileges  of  the  church  as  a  corporation  acknowledged.2  The 
same  year  Sunday  work  was  forbidden  to  the  people  of  the 
cities.3  In  319  private  heathen  sacrifices  were  prohibited.4 
Gifts  were  made  to  clergy,  and  great  churches  erected  in 
Rome,  Jerusalem,  Bethlehem,  and  elsewhere  under  imperial 
auspices.  Above  all,  Constantine's  formal  transference  of  the 
capital  to  the  rebuilt  Byzantium,  which  he  called  New  Rome, 
but  which  the  world  has  named  in  his  honor,  Constantinople, 
was  of  high  significance.  Undoubtedly  political  and  defensive 
in  its  motives,  its  religious  consequences  were  far-reaching. 
From  its  official  foundation,  in  330,  it  established  the  seat  of 
t  empire  in  a  city  of  few  heathen  traditions  or  influences,  situated 
in  the  most  strongly  Christianized  portion  of  the  world.  It 
left  the  bishop  of  Rome,  moreover,  the  most  conspicuous  man 

1  Codex  Theodosianus,  16  :  22  ;  Ayer,  Source  Book,  p.  283. 
*Ibid.,  16  :24;  Ayer,  p.  283. 
8  Codex  Justinianus,  3  :  123  ;  Ayer,  p.  284. 
4  Codex  Theodosianus,  9  :  162  ;  Ayer,  p.  286. 
112 


CONSTANTINE'S  POLICY  113 

in  the  ancient  capital,  to  which  the  Latin-speaking  West  still 
looked  with  reverence — in  a  conspicuity  which  was  the  more 
possible  of  future  importance  because  it  was  wholly  unintended 
by  Constantine,  and  was  spiritual  rather  than  political.  Great 
as  were  the  favors  which  Constantine  showed  to  the  church, 
they  were  only  for  that  strong,  close-knit,  hierarchically  organ 
ized  portion  that  called  itself  the  "Catholic."  The  various 
" heretical"  sects,  and  they  were  still  many,  could  look  for  no 
boijnty  from  his  hands.. 

If  Christianity  was  to  be  a  uniting  factor  in  the  empire,  the 
church  must  be  one.  Constantine  found  that  unity  seriously 
threatened.  In  North  Africa  the  persecution  under  Diocletian 
had  led  to  a  schism,  somewhat  complicated  and  personal  in  its 
causes,  but  resembling  that  of  Novatian  in  Rome,  half  a  century 
earlier  (ante,  p.  102).  The  church  there  was  divided.  The  strict 
party  charged  that  the  new  bishop  of  Carthage,  Caecilian,  had  re 
ceived  ordination  in  311,  from  the  hands  of  one  in  mortal  sin, 
who  had  surrendered  copies  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  recent  per 
secution.  That  ordination  it  held  invalid,  and  chose  a  counter- 
bishop,  Majorinus.  His  successor,  in  316,  was  the  able  Donatus 
the  Great,  from  whom  the  schismatics  received  the  name,  Don 
atists.  In  313  Constantine  made  grants  of  money  to  the 
"Catholic"  clergy  of  North  Africa.1  In  these  the  Donatists  did 
not  share,  and  appealed  to  the  Emperor.  A  synod  held  in  Rome 
the  same  year  decided  against  them,  but  the  quarrel  was  only 
the  more  embittered.  Constantine  thereupon  mapped  out  what 
was  to  be  henceforth  the  imperial  policy  in  ecclesiastical  ques- 
/tions.  He  summoned  a  synod  of  his  portion  of  the  empire  to 
v  meet,  at  public  expense,  in  Aries,  in  southern  Gaul.  The  church 

I  itself  should  decide  the  controversy,  but  under  imperial  con 
trol.  Here  a  large  council  assembled  in  314.  The  Donatist 
contentions  were  condemned.  Ordination  was  declared  valid 
even  at  the  hands  of  a  personally  unworthy  cleric.  Heretical 
baptism  was  recognized,  and  the  Roman  date  of  Easter  ap 
proved.2  The  Donatists  appealed  to  the  Emperor,  who  once 
more  decided  against  them,  in  316;  and  as  they  refused  to  yield, 
now  proceeded  to  close  their  churches  and  banish  their  bishops. 
The  unenviable  spectacle  of  the  persecution  of  Christians  by 
Christians  was  exhibited.  North  Africa  was  in  turmoil.  Con- 

^usebius,  Church  History,  10:  6;  Ayer,  p.  281. 
2  See  Ay  or,  p.  291. 


_, 

114  ARIANISM 

stantine  was,  however,  dissatisfied  with  the  results,  and  in  321 
abandoned  the  use  of  force  against  these  schismatics.  They 
grew  rapidly,  claiming  to  be  the  only  true  church  possessed  of 
a  clergy  free  from  "deadly  sins"  and  of  the  only  valid  sacra 
ments.  Not  till  the  Mohammedan  conquest  did  the  Donatists 
disappear. 

SECTION   II.      THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY  TO  THE  DEATH 
OF  CONSTANTINE 

A  much  more  serious  danger  to  the  unity  of  the  church  than 
the  Donatist  schism  which  Constantine  encountered  was  the 
great  Arian  controversy.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out 
that  while  the  West,  thanks  to  the  work  of  Tertullian  and  No- 

^vatian,  had  reached  practical  unanimity  regarding  the  unity 
of  substance  between  Christ  and  the  Father  (ante,  pp.  69-76), 
the  East  was  divided.  Origen,  still  its  most  dominating  the 
ological  influence,  could  be  quoted  in  opposing  senses.  If  he 
had  taught  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  he  had  also  held 
Him  to  be  a  second  God  and  a  creature  (ante,  p.  81).  Adop- 
tionist  tendencies  persisted,  also,  about  Antioch;  while  Sabel- 
lianism  was  to  be  found  in  Egypt.  The  East,  moreover,  was 
vastly  more  interested  in  speculative  theology  than  the  West, 
and  therefore  more  prone  to  discussion ;  nor  can  there  be  any 
doubt  that,  in  the  fourth  century,  much  more  of  intellectual 
ability  was  to  be  found  in  the  Greek-speaking  than  in  the 
Latin-speaking  portion  of  the  empire. 

The  real  cause  of  the  struggle  was  these  varying  interpreta 
tions;  but  the  actual  controversy  began  in  Alexandria,  about 
320,  in  a  dispute  between  Arius  and  his  bishop,  Alexander 
(312?-328).  Arius,  a  pupil  of  Lucian  of  Antioch  (ante,  p.  106), 
was  presbyter  in  charge  of  the  church  known  as  Baucalis. 
He  was  advanced  in  years  and  held  in  high  repute  as  a  preacher 
of  learning,  ability,  and  piety.  Monarchian  influences  im- 

^bibed  in  Antioch  led  him  to  emphasize  the  unity  and  self- 
contained  existence  of  God.  In  so  far  as  he  was  a  follower  of 
Origen,  he  represented  the  great  Alexandrian's  teaching  that 
Christ  was  a  created  being.  As  such  He  was  not  of  the  sub 
stance  of  God,  but  was  made  like  other  creatures  of  "nothing." 
Though  the  first-born  of  creatures,  and  the  agent  in  fashion 
ing  the  world,  He  was  not  eternal.  "The  Son  has  a  beginning, 


ARIANISM  115 

but  .  .  .  God  is  without  beginning."  x  Christ  was,  indeed, 
God  in  a  certain  sense  to  Arius,  but  a  lower  God,  in  no  way 
one  with  the  Father  in  essence  or  eternity.  In  the  incarnation, 
this  Logos  entered  a  human  body,  taking  the  place  of  the  human 
reasoning  spirit.  To  Arius's  thinking,  Christ  was  neither  fully 
God  nor  fully  man,  but  a  tertium  quid  between.  This  is  what , 
makes  his  view  wholly  unsatisfactory. 

Bishop  Alexander  was  influenced  by  the  other  side  of  Origen's 
teaching.'  To  him  the  Son  was  eternal,  like  in  essence  to  the 
Father,  and  wholly  uncreated.2  His  view  was,  perhaps,  not 
perfectly  clear,  but  its  unlikeness  to  that  of  Arius  is  apparent. 
Controversy  arose  between  Arius  and  Alexander,  apparently 
on  Arius's  initiative.  It  soon  grew  bitter,  and  about  320  or 
321  Alexander  held  a  synod  in  Alexandria  by  which  Arius  and 
a  number  of  his  sympathizers  were  condemned.  Arius  appealed 
for  help  to  his  fellow  pupil  of  the  school  of  Lucian,  the  power-  • 
ful  bishop,  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  and  soon  found  a  refuge 
with  him.  Alexander  wrote  widely  to  fellow  bishops,  and  Arius 
defended  his  own  position,  aided  by  Eusebius.  The  Eastern 
ecclesiastical  world  was  widely  turmoiled. 

Such  was  the  situation  when  Constantine's  victory  over 
Licinius  made  him  master  of  the  East  as  well  as  of  the  West. 
The  quarrel  threatened  the  unity  of  the  church  which  he 
deemed  essential.  Constantine  therefore  sent  his  chief  ecclesi 
astical  adviser,  Bishop  Hosius  of  Cordova,  in  Spain,  to  Alex 
andria  with  an  imperial  letter,  counselling  peace  and  describing 
the  issue  involved  as  "an  unprofitable  question."3  The  well- 
meant,  but  bungling  effort  was  vain.  Constantine,  therefore, 
proceeded  to  employ  the  same  device  he  had  already  made 
use  of  at  Aries  in  the  Donatist  dispute.  He  called  a  council 
of  the  entire  church.  That  of  Aries  had  been  representative 
of  all  the  portion  of  the  empire  then  ruled  by  Constantine. 
Constantine  was  now  master  of  all  the  empire,  and  therefore 
bishops  of  all  the  empire  were  summoned.  The  principle  was 
the  same,  but  the  extent  of  Constantine's  enlarged  jurisdiction 
made  the  gathering  in  Nicsea  the  First  General  Council  of  the 
church. 

The  council,  which  assembled  in  Nicsea  in  May,  325,  has 
V 

1  Arius  to  Eusebius,  Theodoret,  Church  History,  I4;  Ayer,  p.  302. 

2  Letter  of  Alexander,  in  Socrates,  Church  History,  I6. 

3  Letter  in  Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  264-72. 


116  THE   COUNCIL  OF  NIC/EA 

always  lived  in  Christian  tradition  as  the  most  important  in 
the  history  of  the  church.  Tii  it  the  bishops  were^-summo»ed 
at  government  expense,  accompanied  by  lower  clerg}^  who  did 
not,  however,  have  votes  in  its  decisions.  The  East  had  the 
vast  preponderance  OLalxaiLthlgcJiundred  bishops  present 
nnly  sfy  wprp  from  theJWest.  It  included  three  parlies.  A 
'*  small  section,  led  by  EusebTus  of  Nicomedja.  werej:horough- 
going  Arians.  Another  small  group  were  equally  strenuous 
supporters  of  Alexander.^  The  large  majority,  of  whpm  the 
church  historian  t^Eusebius^Cgesarea,  was  a^eader,  were 
deeply  versed  in  the  question  at  issue.  Indeed,  the  majority, 
as  a  whole,  were  described  by  an  unsympathetic  writer  as 
"simpletons."1  As  far  as  they  had  any  opinion,  they  stood 
on  the  general  basis  of  the  teachings  of  Origen.  Conspicuous 
in  jJTp_a.sspTnhly  was  the  .EiDj^Tcu'_JiiiTisplfJ  who,  though  not 
baptized,  and  therefore  not  technically  a  full  member  of  the 
church,  was  far  too  eminent  a  personage  not  to  be  welcomed 
enthusiastically. 

Almost  at.  thf^beginnijig  of  the  council  s\.  crppH  prpqpnfpd  by 
tlia.Aj:iajnji_wa^rejected.  Fjispbiij^  of  Cflpsarea,  then  offered  the 
creed  of  his  own  cKufch. 


dating  fromnBeTore  the  controversy,  and  was,  therefore,  wholly 
indefinite  as  to  the  particular  problems  involved.  This  Csesa- 
rean  creed  was  now  amended  most  significantly  by  the  insertion 
of  the  expressions,  "<hfigoltfin,  not  made,"  "  of  one  essence 
(homoousion,  opoovaLov)  with^  JheJFather  "  ;  and  by  the  specific 
rejection  of  Arian  formulae  such  as  "there  was  when  He  was 
not"  and  "He  was  made  of  things  that  were  not."  The  later 
technically  unlike  words  essence,  substance  (oiKr/a),  and  hypos- 
tasis  (uTToo-rao-t?)  were  here  used  as  equivalent  expressions. 
Loofs  has  shown  conclusively2  that  the  influences  which  secured 
these  changes  were  Western,  doubtless  above  all  that  of  Hosius 
of  Cordova,  supported  by  the  Emperor.  In  particular,  the  test 
word,  homoousion,  had  long  been  orthodox  in  its  Latin  equiva 
lent,  and  had  been  in  philosophic  usage  in  the  second  century, 
though  rejected  by  a  synod  in  Antioch  in  the  proceedings 
against  Paul  of  Samosata  (ante,  p.  73).  Indeed,  it  was  used 
very  sparingly  by  Athanasius  himself  in  his  earlier  defense  of 
the  Nicene  faith.  Tj  i^  ^asy  to  understand  Constantine's  atti- 


1  Socrates,  Church  History,  I8. 

2  Realencyklopcidiv  fur  prot.  Theol  u.  Kirche,  214-  15. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC.EA  117 


.tilde.  Essentially  a  politi44fHvJ^-Tmtwft41y  t^ight  a.  forrrjuja, 
that  would  Jind  _no  opposition  in  theJWestern  half  of  the  em- 
pirc,  and  would  receive  the  support  of  a  portion  of  the  44*^t, 
more  acceptable  than  one  which,  while  having  only  a  part  of 
the  East  in  its  favb7"woulor  be  rejected  by 
' 


To.  Cons_taaitin£.'s  influence  thp  n^Qpfinn  nf  the  Nirene  defini- 
tion  was  due.  That  he  ever  understood  its  shades  of  meaning 
is  more  than  doubtful  ;  but  he  wanted  a  united  expression  of  the 
faith  of  the  church  on  the  question  in  dispute,  and  believed  that 
he  had  found  it.  UiideF-his-supervisieft,  all  but  two  of  the 
bishops  present  signed  4t.  These,  and  Arius.  Constantine  sent 
into  banishment.  'Flic  imperial  politics  had  apparently  se.-. 
cured-tEe  unity-ef^fee-eht^ebj^aRd  had  gtven-4t  what  it  had 
never  before  possessed,  a^sJiatppient.  whirh  might,  be  assumed 
to  be  a  universally  recognized  creed. 

Besides  this  action  in  thus  formulating  the  creed,  the  Coun 
cil  j)f_Nicgea  issued  a  pnmh^r  of  important  ran  on  s  rpgmlfl.t.jnff 
church  discipline^  paved  the  way  for  the  return  of  thosejn  Egypt 
who  had  joined  the  Melitian  schism  over  the  treatment  of  the 
lapsed,  made  easy  the  readmission  of  Novatians,  and  ordered 
a  uniform  date  in  the  observation  of  Easter. 

It  is  not  strange,  in  view  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Nicene 
creed  was  adopted,  that  soon  after  the  council  ended  ,great 
pppositiojn  to  its  testjvojT[1Jtmy^7/.9?!onf  was  manifested  in  the 

if,  w«-«j  nf  coufs^f  ftbnoxnns. 


They  were  fewr.  To  the  large  middle  party  of  disciples  of  Ongen 
it  was  scarcely  less  satisfactory,  for  to  them  it  seemed  Sabel- 
lian.  Though  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  and  his  Arian  sympa 
thizer,  Theognis  of  Nicsea,  had  signed,  their  evident  hostility 
was  such  that  Constantine  sent  both  bishops  into  exile.  By 
328,  however,  they  were  home  again,  possibly  through  the 
favor  of  the  Emperor's  sister,  Constantia.  Eusebius.  soon  ac 
quired  a  greater  influence  over  Constantine  than  any  other 
ecclesiastic  of  the  East,  and  used  it  to  favor  the  cause  of  Arius. 
With  such  elements  of  opposition  to  the  Nicene  result,  the  real 
battle  was  not  in  the  council  but  in  the  more  than  half  a  cen 
tury  which  followed  its  conclusion. 

Meanwhile  the  great  defend^  nf  thn  Nirenp  fa^^  had  come 
fully  on  the  scene.     Athanasiiis  was  born  in  Alexandria  about 


295.     In  the  early  stafgs^of  the  Arian  rnntrnvprsy:  hft  wns  n 
deacon,  and  served  asfmTvjLte  secretary  to  Bishop  Alexander. 


118  ATHANASIUS 

As  such  he  accompanied  his  bishop  to  Nicsea,  and  on  Alexander's 
death,  in  328,  was  chosen  in  turn  to  the  Alexandrian  bishopric 
— a  post  which  he  was  to  hold,  in  spite  of  attack  and  five  ban 
ishments,  till  his  own  demise  in  373.  Not  a  great  speculative 
theologian,  Athanasius  was  a  great  character.  In  an  age 
when  court  favor  counted  for  much,  he  stood  like  a  rock  for  his 
convictions,  and  that  the  Nicene  theology  ultimately  conquered 
was  primarily  due  to  him,  for  the  Nicene  West  possessed  no 
able  theologian.  Tp_Jiiiii>_JJie.._questioij._  at_jssue  was  one  of 
salvation,  and  that  he  made  men  feel  it  to  be  so  was  a  main 
source  of  his  power.  The  Greek  conception  of  salvation  had 
been,  since  the  beginnings  of  the  tradition  of  Asia  Minor,  the 
transformation  of  sinful  mortality  into  divine  and  blessed  im 
mortality — the  impartation  of  "life"  (ante,  p.  40).  Only  by 
real  Godhead  coming  into  union  with  full  manhood  in  Christ 
could  the  transformation  of  the  human  into  the  divine  be  ac 
complished  in  Him,  or  be  mediated  by  Him  to  His  disciples. 
As  Athanasius  said :  "  He  [Christ]  was  made  man  that  we 
might  be  made  divine."1  Tojiis  thinking  the__gi£at.  error,  of 
/  Ariam'.sm  was  that-Jt-gaYe.  mTbasis  for  a  real  salvation.  Well 
was  it  for  the  Nicene  party  that~so ^  moderately eTttetefmined, 
a  champion  stood  for  it,  since  the  two  other  prominent  de 
fenders  of  the  Nicene  faith,  Bishops  Marcellus  of  Ancyra  and 
Eustathius  of  Antioch,  were  certainly  far  from  theologically 
impeccable,  and  were  accused,  not  wholly  rightly,  of  opinions 
decidedly  Sabellian. 

Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  soon  saw  in  Athanasius  the  real  en 
emy.  Constahtine  would  not  desert  the  Nicene  decision,  but 
the  same  practical  result  could  be  achieved,  Eusebius  thought, 
by  striking  its  defenders.  Political  and'theological  differences 
were  cleverly  used  to  secure  the  condemnation  of  Eustathius  in 
330.  The  Eusebians  determined  to  secure  the  discomfiture  of 
Athanasius  and  the  restoration  of  Arius.  The  latter,  who  had 
returned  from  banishment  even  before  Eusebius,  now  presented 
to  Constantine  a  creed  carefully  indefinite  on  the  question  at  is 
sue.2  To  Constantine's  untheological  mind  this  seemed  a  satis 
factory  retraction,  and  an  expression  of  willingness  to  make  his 
peace.  He  directed  Athanasius  to  restore  Arius  to  his  place 
in  Alexandria.  Athanasius  refused.  Charges  of  overbearing 

1  Incarnation,  543. 

2  Socrates,  Church  History,  I26 ;  Ayer,  p.  307. 


THE  ARIAN  REACTION  119 

and  disloyal  conduct  were  brought  against  Athanasius.  Con- 
stantine  was  finally  persuaded  that  the  main  obstacle  in  the 
path  of  peace  was  Athanasius's  stubbornness.  The  bishops 
assembled  for  the  dedication  of  Constantine's  just  completed 
church  in  Jerusalem,  met  in  Tyre,  and  then  in  Jerusalem, 
under  Eusebian  influences,  and  decided  in  favor  of  Arius's 
restoration  in  335,  and  near  the  end  of  the  year  Constantine 
banished  Athanasius  to  Gaul.  Shortly  after  the  same  forces 
procured  the  deposition  of  Marcellus  of  Ancyra  for  heresy. 
The  leading  defenders  of  the  Nicene  creed  being  thus  struck 
down,  the  Eusebians  planned  the  restoration  of  Arius  himself 
to  church  fellowship;  but  on  the  evening  before  the  formal 
ceremony  should  take  place  Arius  suddenly  died  (336).  An 
aged  man,  the  excitement  may  well  have  been  fatal. 

The  Nicene  faith  seemed  thus  not  officially  overthrown,  but 
practically  undermined,  when  Constantine  died  on  May  22, 
337.  Shortly  before  his  demise  he  was  baptized  at  the  hands 
of  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia.  The  changes  which  his  life  had 
witnessed,  and  he  had  largely  wrought,  in  the  status  of  the 
church  were  enormous ;  but  they  were  not  by  any  means  wholly 
advantageous.  If  persecution  had  ceased,  and  numbers  were 
rapidly  growing  under  imperial  favor,  doctrinal  discussions 
that  earlier  would  have  run  their  course  were  now  political 
v /questions  of  the  first  magnitude,  and  the  Emperor  had  assumed 
*  a  power  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  which  was  ominous  for  the 
future  of  the  church.  Yet  in  the  existing  constitution  of  the 
Roman  Empire  such  results  were  probably  inevitable,  once  the 
Emperor  himself  should  become,  like  Constantine,  an  adherent 
of  the  Christian  faith.]" 

SECTION    III.      CONTROVERSY   UNDER   CONSTANTINE'S  SONS 

The  death  of  Constantine  was  succeeded  by  the  division  of 
the  empire  among  his  three  sons,  with  some  intended  provi 
sions  for  other  relatives  that  were  frustrated  by  a  palace  in 
trigue  and  massacre.  Constantine  II,  the  eldest,  received 
Britain,  Gaul,  and  Spain ;  Constantius,  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  and 
Egypt;  while  the  intermediate  portion  came  to  the  youngest, 
Constans.  Constantine  II  died  in  340,  so  that  the  empire  was 
speedily  divided  between  Constans  in  the  West,  and  Constan 
tius  in  the  East.  Both  Emperors  showed  themselves,  from  the 


120  THE  ARIAN  REACTION 

first,  more  partisan  in  religious  questions  than  their  father  had 
been.  A  joint  edict  of  346  ordered  temples  closed,  and  for 
bade  sacrifice  on  pain  of  death.1  The  law  was,  however,  but 
slightly  enforced.  The  Donatist  controversy  in  North  Africa 
had  greatly  extended,  and  that  land,  in  consequence,  was  the 
scene  of  much  agrarian  and  social  agitation.  The  Donatists 
were,  therefore,  attacked  in  force  by  Constans,  and  though 
not  wholly  crushed,  were  largely  rooted  out. 

The  most  important  relationship  of  the  sons  of  Constantine 
to  the  religious  questions  of  the  age  was  to  the  continuing 
Nicene  controversy.  Under  their  rule  it  extended  from  a 
dispute  practically  involving  only  the  East,  as  under  Constan-i 
tine,  to  an  empire- wide  contest.  At  the  beginning  of  their1' 
joint  reigns  the  Emperors  permitted  the  exiled  bishops  to  re 
turn.  Athanasius  was,  therefore,  once  more  in  Alexandria  be 
fore  the  close  of  337.  Eusebius  was,  however,  still  the  most 
influential  party  leader  in  the  East,  and  his  authority  was  but 
strengthened  when  he  was  promoted,  in  339,  from  the  bishopric 
of  Nicomedia  to  that  of  Constantinople,  where  he  died  about 
341.  Through  the  influence  of  Eusebius  Athanasius  was  forci 
bly  driven  from  Alexandria  in  the  spring  of  339,  and  an  Arian 
bishop,  Gregory  of  Cappadocia,  put  in  his  place  by  military 
power.  Athanasius  fled  to  Rome,  where  Marcellus  of  Ancyra 
soon  joined  him. 

East  and  West  were  now  under  different  Emperors,  and 
Constans  held  to  the  Nicene  sympathies  of  his  subjects.  Not 
merely  was  the  empire  divided,  but  Bishop  Julius  of  Rome 
could  now  interfere  from  beyond  the  reach  of  Constantius. 
He  welcomed  the  fugitives  and  summoned  their  opponents  to 
a  synod  in  Rome,  in  340,  though  tfye  Eusebians  did  not  appear. 
The  synod  declared  Athanasius  and  Marcellus  unjustly  deposed. 
The  Eastern  leaders  replied  not  merely  with  protests  against 
the  Roman  action,  but  with  an  attempt  to  do  away  with  the 
Nicene  formula  itself,  in  wrhich  they  had  the  support  of  Con 
stantius.  Two  synods  in  Antioch,  in  341,  adopted  creeds, 
far,  indeed,  from  positively  Arian  in  \expression,  but  from  which 
all  that  was  definitely  Nicene  was  (knitted.  In  some  respects 
they  represented  a  pre-Nicene  orthoooxy.  The  death  of  Eu 
sebius,  now  of  Constantinople,  at  thi^  juncture  cost  the  oppo 
nents  of  the  Nicene  decision  his  able  leadership.  The  two 

1  Codex  Theodosianus,  16  :  104 ;  Ayer,  p.  323. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF' SARDICA  121 

brother  Emperors  thought  that  the  bitter  quarrel  could  best 
be  adjusted  by  a  new  General  Council,  and  accordingly  such  a 
body  gathered  in  Sardica,  the  modern  Sofia,  in  the  autumn  of 
343.'  General  Council  it  was  not  to  be.  The  Eastern  bishops, 
finding  themselves  outnumbered  by  those  of  the  West,  and 
seeing  Athanasius  and  Marcellus  in  company  with  them,  with 
drew.  By  the  Westerners  Athanasius  and  Marcellus  were 
once  more  approved,  though  the  latter  was  a  considerable  bur 
den  to  their  cause  by  reason  of  his  dubious  orthodoxy.  East 
and  West  seemed  on  the  point  of  ecclesiastical  separation.^ 

The  Council  of  Sardica  had  completely  failed  in  its  object 
of  healing  the  quarrel,  but  the  Westerners  there  assembled 
passed  several  canons,  under  the  leadership  of  Hosius  of  Cor 
dova,  that  are  of  great  importance  in  the  development  of  the 
judicial  authority  of  the  bishop  of  Rome.  What  they  did  was 
to  enact  the  actual  recent  course  of  proceedings  regarding 
Athanasius  and  Marcellus  into  a  general  rule.  It  was  decided 
that  in  case  a  bishop  was  deposed,  as  these  had  been,  he  might 
appeal  to  Bishop  Julius  of  Rome,  who  could  cause  the  case  to 
be  retried  by  new  judges,  and  no  successor  should  be  appointed,/ 
till  the  decision  of  Rome  was  known.1  They  were  purely 
Western  rules  and  seem  to  have  aroused  little  attention,  even 
in  Rome,  at  the  time,  but  were  important  for  the  future. 

The  two  imperial  brothers  were  convinced  that  the  contro 
versy  was  assuming  too  serious  aspects.  At  all  events,  Con- 
stans  favored  Athanasius,  and  the  rival  bishop,  Gregory,  having 
died,  Constantius  permitted  Athanasius  to  return  to  Alexandria 
in  October,  347,  where  he  was  most  cordially  welcomed  by  the 
overwhelming  majority  of  the  population,  which  had  always 
heartily  supported  him.  The  situation  seemed  favorable  for 
Athanasius,  but  political  events  suddenly  made  it  worse  than 
it  had  ever  been.  A  rival  Emperor  arose  in  the  West  in  the 
person  of  Magnentius,  and  in  350  Constans  was  murdered. 
Three  years  of  struggle  brought  victory  over  the  usurper  to 
Constantius,  and  left  him  sole  ruler  of  the  empire  (353). 

Constantius,  at  last  in  full  control,  determined  to  end  the 
controversy.  To  his  thinking  Athanasius  was  the  chief  enemy. 
The  leadership  against  Athanasius  was  now  in  the  hands  of 
Bishops  Ursacius  of  Singidunum,  and  Valens  of  Mursa.  At 
synods  held  in  Aries  in  353,  and  in  Milan  in  355,  Constantius 
1  See  Ayer,  pp.  364-366. 


122  THE  HOMOION  FORMULA 

forced  the  Western  bishops  to  abandon  Athanasius,  and  to 
resume  communion  with  his  Eastern  opponents.  For  resis 
tance  to  these  demands  Liberius,  bishop  of  Rome,  Hilary  of  Poi 
tiers,  the  most  learned  bishop  of  Gaul,  and  the  aged  Hosius  of 
Cordova  were  sent  into  banishment.  Athanasius,  driven  from 
Alexandria  by  military  force  in  February,  356,  began  his  third 
exile,  finding  refuge  for  the  next  six  years  largely  among  the 
Egyptian  monks.  At  a  synod  held  in  Sirmium,  the  Emperor's 
residence,  in  357,  ousia  (substance)  in  any  of  its  combinations 
was  forbidden  as  unscriptural.1  This,  so  far  as  the  influence  of 
the  synod  went,  was  an  abolition  of  the  Nicene  formula.  Hosius 
signed  it,  though  he  absolutely  refused  to  condemn  Athanasius. 
The  declaration  of  Sirmium  was  strengthened  by  an  agreement 
secured  by  Constantius  at  the  little  Thracian  town  of  Nice,  in 
359,  in  which  it  was  affirmed  "we  call  the  Son  like  the  Father, 
as  the  holy  scriptures  call  Him  and  teach."  2  The  Emperor 
and  his  episcopal  favorites,  notably  Valens  of  Mursa,  now  se 
cured  its  acceptance  by  synods  purporting  to  represent  East 
and  West,  held  in  Rimini,  Seleucia,  and  Constantinople.  The 
Old-Nicene  formula  was  set  aside,  and  the  whole  church  had, 
theoretically,  accepted  the  new  result.  The  proper  term,  the 
only  one  allowed  in  court  circles,  was  "the  Son  is  like  the 
Father" — homoios — hence  those  who  supported  its  use  were 
known  as  the  Homoion  ("like")  party.  Apparently  colorless, 
the  history  of  its  adoption  made  it  a  rejection  of  the  Nicene 
faith,  and  opened  the  door  to  Arian  assertions.  The  Arians  had 
triumphed  for  the  time  being,  and  that  success  was  largely  aided 
by  the  fact  that  its  Homoion  formula  appealed  to  many  who 
were  heartily  tired  of  the  long  controversy. 

Really,  however,  the  Arian  victory  had  prepared  the  way 
for  the  ruin  of  Arianism,  though  that  result  was  not  immedi 
ately  apparent.  The  opposition  to  the  Nicene  formula  had 
always  been  composed  of  two  elements:  a  small  Arian  sec 
tion,  arid  a  much  larger  conservative  body,  which  stood  mainly 
on  positions  reached  by  Origen,  to  which  Arianism  was  ob 
noxious,  but  which  looked  upon  homoousios,  the  Nicene  phrase, 
as  an  unwarranted  expression  already  condemned  in  Antioch, 
and  of  Sabellian  ill-repute.  Both  elements  had  worked  together 
to  resist  the  Nicene  formula,  but  their  agreement  went  no 
further.  Extreme  Arians  were  raising  their  heads  in  Alexandria 

1  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  De  Synodis,  11 ;  Ayer,  p.  317.          2  Ayer,  p.  319. 


A  MIDDLE  PARTY  123 

and  elsewhere.  The  conservatives  were  even  more  hostile  to 
them  than  to  the  Nicene  party.  They  would  not  say  homoousios 
— of  one  substance — but  they  were  willing  to  say  homoiousios 
— not  in  the  sense  of  like  substance,  as  the  natural  translation 
would  be,  but  of  equality  of  attributes.  They  were  also  begin 
ning  to  draw  a  distinction  between  ousia — substance,  es 
sence — and  hypostasis — now  using  the  latter  in  the  sense 
of  "  subsistence/'  instead  of  making  them  equivalent,  as  in  the 
Nicene  symbol.  This  enabled  them  to  preserve  the  Origen- 
istic  teaching  of  "three  hypostases,"  while  insisting  on  the 
community  of  attributes.  The  newly  formed  middle  party 
came  first  into  evidence  with  a  synod  at  Ancyra,  in  358,  and 
its  chief  early  leaders  were  Bishops  Basil  of  Ancyra,  and 
George  of  Laodicea.  They  have  usually  been  called  the  Semi- 
Arians,  but  the  term  is  a  misnomer.  They  rejected  Arianism 
energetically.  They  really  stood  near  to  Athanasius.  He 
recognized  this  approach,  and  Hilary  of  Poitiers  furthered 
union  by  urging  that  the  conservatives  meant  by  homoiousios 
what  the  Nicene  party  understood  by  homoousios.1  The  ulti 
mate  Nicene  victory  was  to  come  about  through  the  fusion  of 
the  Nicene  and  the  "Semi-Arian"  parties.  In  that  union  the 
tradition  of  Asia  Minor,  and  the  interpretations  of  Origen  were 
to  combine  with  those  of  Alexandria.  It  was  a  slow  process, 
however,  and  in  its  development  the  earlier  Nicene  views  were 
to  be  considerably  modified  into  the  New-Nicene  theology. 

SECTION    IV.      THE   LATER   NICENE   STRUGGLE 

Constantius  died  in  361  as  he  was  preparing  to  resist  his 
cousin,  Julian,  whom  the  soldiers  in  Paris  had  declared  Emperor. 
His  death  left  the  Roman  world  to  Julian.  Spared  on  account 
of  his  youth  at  the  massacre  of  his  father  and  other  relatives 
on  the  death  of  Constantine,  he  looked  upon  Constantius  as 
his  father's  murderer.  Brought  up  in  peril  of  his  life,  and 
forced  to  strict  outward  churchly  observance,  he  came  to  hate 
everything  which  Constantius  represented,  and  was  filled  with 
admiration  for  the  literature,  life,  and  philosophy  of  the  older 
Hellenism.  He  was  not  an  "  apostate,"  in  the  sense  of  a  turn 
coat.  Though  necessarily  concealed  from  the  public,  his  heath 
enism  had  long  been  real,  when  his  campaign  against  Constan- 
1  De  Synodis,  88 ;  Ayer,  p.  319. 


124        ATHANASIUS'S  GROWING  STRENGTH 

tius  enabled  him  publicly  to  declare  it.  It  was  heathenism  of 
a  mystical,  philosophical  character.  On  his  accession  he  at 
tempted  a  heathen  revival.  Christianity  was  everywhere 
discouraged,  and  Christians  removed  from  office.  Bishops 
banished  under  Constantius  were  recalled,  that  the  quarrels  of 
Christians  might  aid  in  the  heathen  reaction.  Athanasius 
was  thus  once  more  in  Alexandria  in  362,  but  before  the  year 
was  out  was  exiled  for  the  fourth  time  by  Julian,  who  was 
angered  by  his  success  in  making  converts  from  heathenism. 
Julian's  reign  was  soon  over.  In  363  he  lost  his  life  in  a  cam 
paign  against  the  Persians.  In  him  Rome  had  its  last  heathen 
Emperor. 

The  reign  of  Julian  showed  the  real  weakness  of  the  Arian- 
izing  elements  which  Constantius  had  supported.  Athanasians 
and  Semi-Arians  drew  together.  Furthermore,  the  Nicene 
debate  was  broadening  out  to  include  a  discussion  of  the  re- 
v/lations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  Godhead.  Since  the  time  of 
Tertullian,  in  the  West,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  had  been 
regarded  as  three  "persons,"  of  one  substance  (ante,  p.  69). 
The  East  had  reached  no  such  unanimity.  Even  Origen  had 
been  uncertain  whether  the  Spirit  was  "  created  or  uncreated," 
or  "a  son  of  God  or  not."  l  There  had  not  been  much  discus 
sion  of  the  theme.  Now  that  it  had  come  forward,  the  homoousia 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  the  Father,  seemed  to  Athanasius  and 
his  friends  a  corollary  from  the  homoousia  of  the  Son.  At  a 
synod  held  in  Alexandria  in  362,  by  the  just  returned  Athana 
sius,  terms  of  union  were  drawn  up  for  rival  parties  in  Antioch. 
It  would  be  sufficient  "to  anathematize  the  Arian  heresy  and 
confess  the  faith  confessed  by  the  holy  Fathers  at  Nicsea,  and 
to  anathematize  also  those  who  say  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a 
creature  and  separate  from  the  essence  of  Christ."  2  The  em 
ployment  of  the  terms  "three  hypostases"  and  "one  hypos- 
tasis"  the  synod  regarded  as  indifferent,  provided  "three" 
was  not  used  in  the  sense  of  "alien  in  essence,"  and  "one"  in 
that  of  Sabellian  unity.  The  door  was  thus  opened  by  Atha 
nasius  himself  not  only  for  the  full  definition  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  but  for  the  New-Nicene  orthodoxy,  with  its  God 
head  in  one  essence  (substance)  and  three  hypostases. 

The  death  of  Julian  was  succeeded  by  the  brief  reign  of 

1  De  Principiis,  Preface. 

2  Tomus  admAntiochenos,  3  ;  Ayer,  p.  350. 


THE  GREAT  CAPPADOCIANS  125 

Jovian.  The  empire  had  once  more  a  Christian  ruler,  and 
happily,  one  who  interfered  little  in  ecclesiastical  politics. 
Athanasius  promptly  returned  from  his  fourth  exile.  Jovian's 
rule  ended  in  364,  and  he  was  succeeded  by  Valentinian  I  (364- 
375),  who,  finding  the  imperial  defense  too  great  a  task,  took 
charge  of  the  West,  giving  to  his  brother,  Valens  (364-378) 
the  sovereignty  of  the  East.  Valentian  interfered  little  with 
churchly  affairs.  Valens  came  under  the  influence  of  the 
Arian  clergy  of  Constantinople,  and  both  Homoousian  and 
Homoiousian  sympathizers  shared  his  dislike — a  situation  which 
helped  to  bring  these  parties  nearer  together.  He  condemned 
Athanasius  to  a  fifth  and  final  exile,  in  365 ;  but  it  was  brief, 
and  the  aged  bishop  did  not  have  to  go  far  from  the  city. 
Valens  was,  however,  no  such  vigorous  supporter  of  Arianism 
as  Constantius  had  been.  Athanasius  died  in  Alexandria,  in 
373,  full  of  years  and  honors. 

At  the  death  of  Athanasius  the  leadership  in  the  struggle 
was  passing  into  the  hands  of  new  men,  of  the  New-Nicene 
party.  Chief  of  these  were  the  three  great  Cappadocians, 
Basil  of  CaBsarea  in  Cappadocia,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  and 
Gregory  of  Nyssa.  Born  of  a  prominent  Cappadocian  family 
about  330,  Basil  received  the  best  training  that  Constanti 
nople  and  Athens  could  yield,  in  student  association  with  his 
life-long  friend  Gregory  of  Nazianzus.  About  357  he  yielded 
to  the  ascetic  Christian  tendencies  of  the  age,  and  gave  up  any 
idea  of  a  career  of  worldly  advancement,  living  practically  as  a 
monk.  He  visited  Egypt,  then  the  home  of  the  rising  monas 
tic  movement,  and  became  the  great  propagator  of  monasti- 
cism  in  Asia  Minor.  He  was,  however,  made  for  affairs  and  not 
for  the  cloister.  Deeply  versed  in  Origen,  and  in  sympathy 
with  the  Homoiousian  party,  he  belonged  to  the  section  which 
gradually  came  into  fellowship  with  Athanasius,  and  like  Ath- 
Jknasius  he  supported  the  full  consubstantiality  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  To  the  wing  of  the  Homoiousian  party  which  refused 
to  regard  the  Spirit  as  fully  God — the  so-called  Macedonians — 
he  offered  strenuous  opposition.  It  was  a  far-reaching  vic 
tory  for  his  cause  when  Basil  became  bishop  of  the  Cappa 
docian  Csesarea,  in  37(L.  The  post  gave  him  ecclesiastical  au 
thority  over  a  large  section  of  eastern  Asia  Minor,  which  he 
used  to  the  full  till  his  early  death,  in  379,  to  advance  the 
New-Nicene  cause.  He  sought  also  to  promote  a  good  under- 


126  THE  GREAT  CAPPADOCIANS 

standing  between  the  opponents  of  Arianism  in  the  East  and 
the  leaders  of  the  West. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa  was  Basil's  younger  brother.  An  orator 
of  ability,  and  a  writer  of  even  greater  skill  and  theological 
clearness  than  Basil,  he  had  not  Basil's  organizing  and  ad 
ministrative  gifts.  His  title  was  derived  from  the  little  Cappa- 
docian  town — Nyssa — of  which  he  became  bishop  in  371  or 
372.  He  lived  till  after  394,  and  ranks  among  the  four  great 
Fathers  of  the  Oriental  Church. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus  (329?-389?)  had  his  title  from  the 
town  of  his  birth,  where  his  father  was  bishop.  Warmly  be 
friended  with  Basil  from  student  days,  like  Basil  he  felt  strongly 
the  monastic  attraction.  His  ability  as  a  preacher  was  greater 
than  that  of  either  of  his  associates,  but  was  exercised  in  most 
varying  stations.  As  a  priest  he  aided  his  father,  from  about 
361.  By  Basil  he  was  made  bishop  of  the  village  of  Sasima. 
About  378  he  went  to  Constantinople  to  oppose  the  Arianism 
which  was  the  faith  of  the  vast  majority  of  its  inhabitants. 
The  accession  of  the  zealously  Nicene  Emperor,  Theodosius, 
in  379,  gave  him  the  needed  support,  and  he  preached  with 
such  success  that  he  gained  the  repute  of  having  turned  the 
city  to  the  Nicene  faith.  By  Theodosius  he  was  made  bishop 
of  Constantinople  in  381.  But  the  frictions  of  party  strife 
and  the  inclination  to  ascetic  retirement  which  had  several 
times  before  driven  him  from  the  world,  caused  him  speedily 
to  relinquish  this  most  exalted  ecclesiastical  post.  As  a  writer 
he  ranked  with  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  Like  him  he  is  reckoned 
one  of  the  Eastern  Fathers,  and  the  later  Orient  has  given  him 
the  title,  the  "Theologian." 

To  the  three  Cappadocians,  more  than  to  any  others,  the 
intellectual  victory  of  the  New-Nicene  faith  was  due.  To  the 
men  of  that  age  their  work  seemed  the  triumph  of  the  Nicene 
formula.  What  modifications  they  really  made  have  been  well 
expressed  by  a  recent  German  writer  i1 

Athanasius  (and  Marcellus)  taught  the  one  God,  leading  a 
threefold  personal  life,  who  reveals  Himself  as  such.  The  Cappa- 
docians  think  of  three  divine  hypostases,  which,  as  they  manifest 
the  same  activity,  are  recognized  as  possessing  one  nature  and  the 
same  dignity.  The  mystery  for  the  former  lay  in  the  trinity;  for 

1  Seeberg,  Text-Book  of  the  History  of  Doctrines,  Eng.  tr.,  1 :  232. 


THE  NEW-NICENE  ORTHODOXY  127 

the  latter,  in  the  unity.  .  .  .  The  Cappadocians  interpreted  the 
doctrine  of  Athanasius  in  accordance  with  the  conceptions  and 
underlying  principles  of  the  Logos-Christology  of  Origen.  They 
paid,  however,  for  their  achievement  a  high  price,  the  magnitude 
of  which  they  did  not  realize — the  idea  of  the  personal  God. 
Three  personalities  and  an  abstract,  impersonal  essence,  are  the 
resultant. 

The  original  Nicene  success  and  the  temporary  triumph  of 
Arianism  had  been  made  possible  by  imperial  interference. 
The  same  force  was  to  give  victory  to  the  New-Nicene  ortho 
doxy.  The  death  of  Valens  in  the  great  Roman  defeat  by  the 
West  Goths,  near  Adrianople,  in  378,  left  his  nephew,  Gratian, 
the  sole  surviving  ruler.  Gratian  preferred  the  care  of  the 
West,  and  wisely  appointed  as  Emperor  for  the  East  an  able 
general  and  administrator,  Theodosius,  who  became  ultimately, 
for  a  brief  period,  the  last  sole  ruler  of  the  Roman  Empire. 
Born  in  Spain,  he  grew  up  in  full  sympathy  with  the  theology 
of  the  West,  and  shared  to  the  utmost  its  devotion  to  the  Nicene 
faith.  In  380,  in  conjunction  with  Gratian,  he  issued  an  edict 
that  all  should  "hold  the  faith  which  the  holy  Apostle  Peter 
gave  to  the  Romans,"  which  he  defined  more  particularly  as 
that  taught  by  the  existing  bishops,  Damasus  of  Rome,  and 
Peter  of  Alexandria.1  This  edict  constitutes  a  reckoning  point 
in  imperial  politics  and  ecclesiastical  development.  Hence 
forth  there  was  to  be  but  one  religion  in  the  empire,  and  that 
the  Christian.  Moreover,  only  that  form  of  Christianity  was 
to  exist  which  taught  one  divine  essence  in  three  hypostases, 
or,  as  the  West  would  express  it  in  supposedly  similar  terms, 
one  substance  in  three  persons. 

In  381  Theodosius  held  an  Eastern  synod  in  Constantinople, 
which  ultimately  gained  repute  as  the  Second  General  Council, 
and  obtained  an  undeserved  credit  as  the  supposed  author  of 
the  creed  which  passed  into  general  use  as  "Nicene."  Of  its 
work  little  is  known.  It  undoubtedly  rejected,  however,  that 
wing  of  the  Homoiousian  party — the  Macedonian — which  re 
fused  to  accept  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
approved  the  original  Nicene  creed.  Personal  differences  con 
tinued  between  East  and  West,  and  between  Eastern  parties ; 
but  the  forcible  way  in  which  the  Emperor  now  drove  out  the 

1  Codex  Theodosianus,  16l ;  Ayer,  p.  367. 


128  THE  NEW-NICENE  TRIUMPH 

Arians  decided  the  fate  of  Arianism  in  the  empire,  in  spite  of  a 
brief  toleration  of  Arianism  in  northern  Italy  by  Gratian's  suc 
cessor,  Valentinian  II,  influenced  by  his  mother,  against  which 
Ambrose  of  Milan  had  to  strive.  Here,  too,  the  authority  of 
Theodosius  was  potent  after  her  death,  about  388.  Arianism 
in  the  empire  was  a  lost  cause,  though  it  was  to  continue  for 
several  centuries  among  the  Germanic  invaders,  thanks  to  the 
missionary  work  of  Ulfila  (see  Section  V). 

Yet  even  when  the  synod  of  381  met,  the  Nicene  creed,  as 
adopted  in  325,  failed  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  theologic 
development  in  the  victorious  party.  It  said  nothing  regard 
ing  the[consubstantiality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,\for  instance.  A 
creed  more  fully  meeting  the  state  of  discussion  was  desirable, 
and  actually  such  a  creed  came  into  use,  and  by  451  was  re 
garded  as  adopted  by  the  General  Council  of  381.  It  ulti 
mately  took  the  place  of  the  genuine  Nicene  creed,  and  is  that 
known  as  the  "Nicene"  to  this  day.  Its  exact  origin  is  un 
certain,  but  it  is  closely  related  to  the  baptismal  creed  of 
Jerusalem,  as  reconstructible  from  the  teaching  of  Cyril, 
afterward  bishop  of  that  city,  about  348 ;  and  also  to  that  of 
Epiphanius  of  Salami s,  about  374.1 

On  reviewing  this  long  controversy,  it  may  be  said  that  it 
was  a  misfortune  that  a  less  disputed  phrase  was  not  adopted 
at  Nicsea,  and  doubly  a  misfortune  that  imperial  interference 
played  so  large  a  part"  in  the  ensuing  discussions.  In  the  strug- 
gle  the  imperial  church  came  into  existence,  and  a  policy  of  im 
perial  interference  was  fully  developed.  Departure  from  official 
orthodoxy  had  become  a  crime. 

Theodosius's  attitude  was  no  less  strenuous  toward  remain 
ing  heathenism  than  in  regard  to  heretical  Christian  parties. 
In  392  he  forbade  heathen  worship  under  penalties  similar  to 
those  for  lese-majesty  and  sacrilege.2  It  was  the  old  weapon 
of  heathenism  against  Christianity  now  used  by  Christian 
hands  against  heathenism.  Constantine's  toleration  had  fully 
disappeared.  Nevertheless,  heathen  worship  persisted,  and 
only  slowly  died  out. 

1  Ayer,  Source  Book,  pp.  354-356. 

2  Codex  Theodosianus,  16l°.  12 ;  Ayer,  p.  347. 


THE   GERMANIC  TRIBES  129 


SECTION    V.      A1UAN    MISSIONS    AND    THE    GERMANIC    INVASIONS 

Throughout  the  history  of  the  empire  the  defense  of  the 
frontiers  of  the  Rhine  and  the  Danube  against  the  Teutonic 
peoples  beyond  had  been  an  important  military  problem. 
Under  Marcu^  Aurelius  a  desperate,  but  ultimately  successful 
war  had  been  waged  by  the  Romans  on  the  upper  Danube 
(167-180).  Considerable  shifting  of  tribes  and  formations  of 
confederacies  took  place  behind  the  screen  of  the  Roman  fron 
tier;  but  by  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  the  group 
known  as  the  Alemans  had  formed  across  the  upper  Rhine, 
and  half  a  century  later,  that  of  the  Franks  on  the  lower  right 
side  of  that  river.  Between  these  two  developments,  about 
230-240,  the  Goths  completed  their  settlement  in  what  is  now 
southern  Russia.  In  250  and  251  the  Roman  hold  in  the  Bal 
kans  was  seriously  threatened  by  a  Gothic  invasion,  in  which 
the  persecuting  Emperor,  Decius,  lost  his  life.  The  Goths 
effected  a  settlement  in  the  region  north  of  the  lower  Danube. 
They  invaded  the  empire,  and  the  peril  was  not  stayed  till  the 
victories  of  Claudius  (269),  from  which  he  derived  his  title, 
"Gothicus."  The  stronger  Emperors,  Aurelian,  Diocletian, 
and  Constantine,  held  the  frontiers  of  the  Rhine  and  the 
Danube  effectively ;  but  the  danger  of  invasion  was  always 
present.  By  the  fourth  century  the  Goths  north  of  the  Danube, 
who  were  most  in  contact  with  Roman  civilization  of  any  of 
the  Germanic  tribes,  were  known  as  the  Visigoths,  while  their 
kinsmen  in  southern  Russia  were  called  Ostrogoths.  The  exact 
meaning  of  these  names  is  uncertain,  though  they  are  generally 
regarded  as  signifying  West  and  East  Goths. 

There  was,  indeed,  much  interchange  between  Romans  and 
Germans,  especially  from  the  time  of  Aurelian  onward.  Ger 
mans  served,  in  increasing  numbers,  in  the  Roman  armies. 
Roman  traders  penetrated  far  beyond  the  borders  of  the  em 
pire.  Germans  settled  in  the  border  provinces  and  adopted 
Roman  ways.  Prisoners  of  war,  taken  probably  in  the  raid 
of  264,  from  Cappadocia,  had  introduced  the  germs  of  Chris 
tianity  among  the  Visigoths  before  the  close  of  the  third  cen 
tury,  and  even  a  rudimentary  church  organization  in  certain 
places.  The  Visigoths,  as  a  nation,  had  not  been  converted. 
4  To  that  work  Ulfila  was  to  contribute.  Born  about  310,  of 
parentage  sprung,  in  part  at  least,  from  the  captives  just  men- 


130  THE  WORK  OF  ULFILA 

tioned,  he  was  of  Christian  origin,  and  became  a  "reader"  in 
the  services  of  the  little  Christian  Gothic  circle.  In  341  he  ac 
companied  a  Gothic  embassy,  and  was  ordained  bishop  by  the 
Arian  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  then  bishop  of  Constantinople, 
whether  in  the  latter  city,  or  in  Antioch  where  the  synod  (ante, 
p.  120)  was  then  sitting,  is  uncertain.  His  theology,  which 
seems  to  have  been  very  simple,  was  thenceforth  anti-Nicene, 
and  after  the  formation  of  the  Homoiousian  party  he  was  to  be 
reckoned  one  of  its  adherents.  For  the  next  seven  years  he 
labored  in  his  native  land,  till  persecution  compelled  him  and 
his  fellow  Christians  to  seek  refuge  on  Roman  soil,  living  and 
laboring  for  many  years  near  the  modern  Plevna,  in  Bulgaria. 
His  great  work  was  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures,  or  at  least 
of  the  New  Testament,  into  the  Gothic  tongue.  In  383  he  died 
on  a  visit  to  Constantinople.  Unfortunately,  the  complete 
oblivion  into  which  these  Arian  labors  fell,  owing  to  their  un 
orthodox  character  in  the  view  of  the  following  age,  allows  no 
knowledge  of  Ulfila's  associates,  nor  a  judgment  as  to  how  far 
the  credit  of  turning  the  Visigoths  to  Christianity  belonged  to 
him,  or  to  the  Gothic  chieftain  Fritigern,  about  370. 

But,  however  brought  about,  the  Visigoths,  in  spite  of  heathen 
persecution,  rapidly  accepted  Arian  Christianity.  Not  only 
'they,  but  their  neighbors  the  Ostrogoths,  the  Vandals  in  part, 
and  remoter  Germanic  tribes,,  such  as  the  Burgundians  and 
Lombards,  had  embraced  the  Arian  faith  before  invading  the 
empire.  Indeed,  so  widely  had  Christianity  penetrated  that 
it  seems  not  improbable  that,  had  the  invasions  been  a  couple  of 
generations  delayed,  all  might  have  entered  the  empire  as 
Christians.  As  it  was,  those  tribes  only  which  were  the  far 
thest  removed  from  the  influences  going  out  from  the  Visigoths 
— those  of  northwestern  Germany,  of  whom  the  chief  were 
the  Franks  and  the  Saxons — remained  overwhelmingly  heathen 
at  the  time  x>f  the  invasions.  Such  rapid  extension  of  Chris 
tianity  shows  that  the  hold  of  native  paganism  must  have  been 
slight,  and  that  many,  whose  names  have  utterly  perished, 
shared  in  the  work  of  conversion.  It  was  of  the  utmost  sig 
nificance  that  when  the  walls  of  the  empire  were  broken  the 
Germans  came,  for  the  most  part,  not  as  enemies  of  Chris 
tianity.  Had  the  Western  empire  fallen,  as  well  it  might,  a 
century  before,  the  story  of  Christianity  might  have  been  vastly 
different. 


THE  GERMAN  INVASIONS  131 

Pressed  by  an  invasion  of  Huns  from  western  Central  Asia, 
the  Visigoths  sought  shelter  across  the  frontier  of  the  lower 
Danube  in  376.  Angered  by  ill-treatment  from  Roman  offi 
cials,  they  crossed  the  Balkans  and  annihilated  the  Roman  army 
near  Adrianople,  in  378,  in  a  battle  in  which  the  Emperor  Valens 
lost  his  life,  f  The  strong  hand  of  Theodosius  (379-395)  re 
strained  their  further  attacks;  but  on  his  death  the  empire, 
divide^  between  his  son  of  eighteen,  Arcadius,  in  the  East,  and 
his  eleven-year-old  son,  Honorius,  in  the  West,  was  no  longer 
able  to  resist  the  attack.  Under  Alaric,  the  Visigoths  plun 
dered  almost  to  the  walls  of  Constantinople,  and  thence  moved 
into  Greece,  penetrating  as  far  as  Sparta.  By  401  the  Visi 
goths  were  pressing  into  northern  Italy,  but  were  resisted  for 
the  next  few  years  by  Theodosius's  able  Vandal  general,  Stilicho, 
whom  he  had  left  as  guardian  for  the  young  Honorius.  Stili- 
cho's  murder,  in  408,  opened  the  road  to  Rome,  and  Alaric 
promptly  marched  thither.  It  was  not  till  410,  however,  that 
the  Visigothic  chieftain  actually  captured  the  city.  The  pop- 
pular  impression  of  this  event  was  profound.  The  old  mistress 
of  the  world  had  fallen  before  the  barbarians.  Alaric,  desirous 
of  establishing  a  kingdom  for  himself  and  of  securing  Roman 
Africa,  the  granary  of  Italy,  marched  at  once  for  southern 
Italy,  and  there  died  before  the  close  of  410.  Under  Ataulf 
the  Visigothic  host  marched  northward,  invading  southern 
Gaul  in  412.  Here  the  Goths  settled  by  419,  developing 
ultimately  a  kingdom  that  included  half  of  modern  France, 
to  which  they  added  most  of  Spain  by  conquest  during  the 
course  of  the  century.  The  Roman  inhabitants  were  not  driven 
out,  but  they  were  subjected  to  their  Germanic  conquerors, 
who  appropriated  much  of  the  land,  and  placed  its  older  occu 
pants  in  a  distinctly  inferior  position.  Commerce  was  ham 
pered,  the  life  of  the  cities  largely  broken  down,  and  civilization 
crippled. 

While  these  events  were  in  progress,  the  tribes  across  the 
Rhine  had  seen  their  opportunity.  The  Arian  Vandals  and 
heathen  Alans  and  Suevi  invaded  Gaul  at  the  close  of  406, 
ultimately  pushing  their  way  into  Spain,  where  they  arrived 
before  the  Visigoths.  The  Franks  had  pressed  into  northern 
Gaul  and  the  Burgundians  conquered  the  region  around  Strass- 
burg,  and  thence  gradually  the  territory  of  eastern  Gaul  which 
still  bears  their  name.  Britain,  involved  in  this  collapse  of 


132  THE  GERMAN  INVASIONS 

Roman  authority,  was  increasingly  invaded  by  the  Saxons, 
Angles,  and  Jutes,  who  had  been  attacking  its  coasts  since  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century.  There  Roman  civilization  had 
a  weaker  grasp  than  on  the  continent,  and  as  Germanic  con 
quest  slowly  advanced,  it  drove  the  Celtic  element  largely 
westward,  and  made  much  of  Britain  a  heathen  land.  The 
Vandals  from  Spain,  having  entered  Africa  by  425,  invaded  it 
in  full  force  in  429,  under  Gaiseric.  They  soon  established  there 
the  most  powerful  of  the  early  Germanic  kingdoms,  whose  pi 
ratical  ships  speedily  dominated  the  western  Mediterranean. 
A  Vandal  raid  sacked  Rome  in  455.  A  fearful  invasion  of 
Gaul  in  451,  by  the  Huns  under  Attila,  was  checked  in  battle 
near  Troyes  by  the  combined  forces  of  the  Romans  and  Visi 
goths.  The  next  year  Attila  carried  his  devastations  into  Italy, 
and  was  barely  prevented  from  taking  Rome  by  causes  which 
are  now  obscure,  but  among  which  the  efforts  of  its  bishop, 
Leo  I,  were  believed  to  have  been  determinative. 

Though  the  rule  of  the  Emperors  was  nominally  maintained 
in  the  West,  and  even  the  Germanic  conquerors,  who  established 
kingdoms  in  Gaul,  Spain,  and  Africa  were  professedly  their  de 
pendents,  the  Emperors  became  the  tools  of  the  chiefs  of  the 
army.  On  the  death  of  Honorius,  in  423,  the  empire  passed 
to  Valentinian  III.  His  long  reign,  till  455,  was  marked  by  the 
quarrels  of  Boniface,  count  of  Africa,  and  Aetius,  the  count 
of  Italy,  which  permitted  the  Vandal  conquest  of  North  Africa. 
Aetius  won,  indeed,  about  the  last  victory  of  the  empire  when, 
with  the  Visigoths,  he  defeated  Attila  in  451.  Between  455  and 
476  no  less  than  nine  Emperors  were  set  up  and  deposed  in  the 
West.  The  real  ruler  of  Italy  was  the  head  of  the  army.  From 
456  to  472  this  post  was  held  by  Ricimer,  of  Suevic  and  Visi- 
gothic  descent.  After  his  death  the  command  was  taken  by 
a  certain  Orestes,  who  conferred  the  imperial  title  on  his  son, 
Romulus,  nicknamed  Augustulus.  The  army  in  Italy  was 
recruited  chiefly  from  smaller  Germanic  tribes,  among  them  the 
Rugii  and  Heruli.  It  now  demanded  a  third  of  the  land. 
Orestes  refused,  and  the  army  rose  in  mutiny  in  476  under  the 
Germanic  general  Odovakar,  whom  it  made  King.  This  date 
has  usually  been  taken  as  that  of  the  close  of  the  Roman  Em 
pire.  In  reality  it  was  without  special  significance.  Romulus 
Augustulus  was  deposed.  There  was  no  further  Emperor  in 
the  West  till  Charlemagne.  But  Odovakar  and  his  contem- 


THE  GERMAN  INVASIONS  133 

poraries  had  no  thought  that  the  Roman  Empire  was  at  an 
end.  He  ruled  in  Italy  as'  the  Visigoths  ruled  in  southern 
France  and  Spain,  a  nominal  subject  of  the  Roman  Emperor, 
who  sat  on  the  throne  in  Constantinople. 

Odovakar's  sovereignty  in  Italy  was  ended  in  493  in  the 
struggle  against  new  Germanic  invaders  of  Italy,  the  Ostro 
goths,  led  by  Theodoric.  Under  that  successful  conqueror  a 
really  Remarkable  amalgamation  of  Roman  and  Germanic  in 
stitutions  was  attempted.  His  capital  was  Ravenna,  whence 
he  ruled  till  his  death  in  526.  The  Ostrogothic  kingdom  in 
Italy  was  brought  to  an  end  by  the  long  wars  under  the  Em 
peror  Justinian,  which  were  fought,  from  535  to  555,  by  Beli- 
sarius  and  Narses,  who  restored  a  ravaged  Italy  to  the  empire. 
Contemporaneously  (534)  the  imperial  authority  wras  re-estab 
lished  in  North  Africa  and  the  Vandal  kingdom  brought  to 
an  end.  Italy  was  not  long  at  peace.  Between  568  and  572 
a  new  Germanic  invasion,  that  of  the  Lombards,  founded  a 
kingdom  that  was  to  last  for  two  centuries.  Masters  of  north 
ern  Italy,  to  which  region  they  gave  their  name,  the  Lombards 
did  not,  however,  win  Rome  and  the  southern  part  of  the 
peninsula,  nor  did  they  gain  Ravenna,  the  seat  of  the  imperial 
exarch,  till  the  eighth  century.  Rome  remained,  therefore, 
connected  with  the  empire  which  had  its  seat  in  Constanti 
nople,  but  so  distant  and  so  close  to  the  Lombard  frontier 
that  effective  control  from  Constantinople  was  impossible — 
a  condition  extremely  favorable  for  the  growth  of  the  political 
power  of  its  bishop. 

Contemporaneously  with  the  earlier  of  the  events  just  de 
scribed,  changes  of  the  utmost  significance  were  in  process  in 
Gaul.  The  Franks,  of  whom  mention  has  been  made,  had 
long  been  pressing  into  the  northern  part  of  the  ancient  prov 
inces.  Divided  into  several  tribes,  the  King  of  the  Salic 
j  Franks,  from  about  481,  was  Clovis.  A  chieftain  of  great 
^energy,  he  soon  extended  his  sovereignty  as  far  as  the  Loire. 
He  and  his  people  were  still  heathen,  though  he  treated  the 
church  with  respect.  In  493  he  married  Clotilda,  a  Burgun- 
dian,  but,  unlike  most  of  her  fellow  countrymen,  a  "Catholic," 
not  an  Arian.  After  a  great  victory  over  the  Alemans,  in  496, 
he  declared  for  Christianity,  and  was  baptized  with  three 
thousand  of  his  followers  in  Rheims,  on  Christmas  of  that 
year.  His  was  the  first  Germanic  tribe,  therefore,  to  be  con- 


J 


134         THE  CONVERSION  OF  THE  FRANKS 

verted  to  the  orthodox  faith.  Visigoths,  Ostrogoths,  Vandals, 
Burgundians,  and  Lombards  were  Arians.  This  agreement  in 
belief  won  for  Clovis  not  only  the  good-will  of  the  old  Roman 
population  and  the  support  of  the  bishops  whom  he,  in  turn, 
favored  but,  added  to  his  own  abilities,  enabled  him  before  his 
death,  in  511,  to  take  from  the  Visigoths  most  of  their  posses 
sions  north  of  the  Pyrenees  and  to  become  so  extensive  a  ruler 
that  he  may  well  be  called  the  founder  of  France,  his  territories 
stretching  even  beyond  the  Rhine.  That  the  Franks  were 
"Catholic"  was  ultimately,  though  not  immediately,  to  bring 
connections  between  them  and  the  papacy  of  most  far-reaching 
consequences. 

The  conversion  of  the  Franks  had  also  much  influence  on 
the  other  Germanic  invaders,  though  the  example  of  the  native 
population  among  whom  they  were  settled  worked  even  more 
powerfully.  The  Burgundians  abandoned  Arianism  in  517, 
and  in  532  became  part  of  the  Frankish  kingdom.  The  im 
perial  conquests  of  Justinian  ended  the  Arian  kingdoms  of  the 
Vandals  and  Ostrogoths.  The  rivalry  of  the  creeds  was  ter 
minated  in  Spain  by  the  renunciation  of  Arianism  by  the  Visi- 
gothic  King,  Recared,  in  587,  and  confirmed  at  the  Third  Coun 
cil  of  Toledo,  in  589.  About  590  the  gradual  conversion  of 
the  Lombards  to  Catholicism  began — a  process  not  completed 
till  about  660.  Thus  all  Arianism  ultimately  disappeared. 

SECTION  VI.      THE   GROWTH   OF  THE   PAPACY 

To  the  distinction  already  attaching  to  the  Roman  Church 
and  its  bishop  the  period  of  the  invasions  brought  new  emi 
nence.     Believed  to  be  founded  by  Peter,  situated  in  the  an 
cient  capital,  the  guardian  of  apostolical  tradition,  the  largest 
and  most  generous  church  of  the  West,  it  had  stood  orthodox 
in  the  Arian  controversy,  and  in  the  ruin  of  the  Germanic  in 
vasions  it  seemed  the  great  surviving  institution  of  the  ancient 
world  which  they  were  unable  to  overthrow.     While  most  of 
the  bishops  of  Rome  in  this  period  were  men  of  moderate 
abilities,  several  were  the  strongest  leaders  of  the  West,  and  to 
~  them  great  advancement  in  the  authority  of  the  Roman  bishop 
\  — the  development  of  a  real  papacy— was  due.     Such  a  leader 
"  \  of  force  was  Innocent  I  (402-417).     He  claimed  for  the  Roman 
C,  Church  not  only  custody  of  apostolical  tradition  and  the  f ounda- 


THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  PAPACY  135 

tion  of  all  Western  Christianity,  but  ascribed  the  decisions  of 
Sardica  (ante,  p.  121)  to  the  Council  of  Nicsea,  and  based  on! 
them  a  universal  jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  bishop.1     Leo  I 
(440-461)  greatly  served  Rome,  in  the  judgment  of  the  time,  \ 
during  the  invasions  of  the  Huns  and  Vandals,  and  largely 
influenced  the'  result  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (p.  151).     He 
emphasized  the  primacy  of  Peter  among  the  Apostles,  both  in  <\ 
faith  and  government,  and  taught  that  what  Peter  possessed  had  ( 
Y  passed  to  Peter's  successors.2    These  claims  Leo  largely  madey 
good.     He  ended  the  attempt  to  create  an  independent  Gallic 
see  in  Aries ;  he  exercised  authority  in  Spain  and  North  Africa. 
In  445  he  procured  an  edict  from  the  Western  Emperor,  Valen- 
tinian  III,  ordering  all  to  obey  the  Roman  bishop,  as  having 
the  "primacy  of  Saint  Peter."  3    On  the  other  hand,  the  Coun 
cil  of  Chalcedon,  in  451,  by  its  twenty-eighth  canon  placed  • 
Constantinople  on  a  practical  equality  with  Rome.4     Against  ( 
this  action  Leo  at  once  protested;  but  it  foreshadowed  the  ulti-  / 
mate  separation,  far  more  political  than  religious,  between  the/ 
churches  of  East  and  West. 

In  the  struggle  with  Monophysitism  (p.  154),  the  bishops  of 
Rome  resisted  the  efforts  of  the  Emperor  Zeno  (474-491)  and 
the  Patriarch  Acacius  of  Constantinople  to  modify  the  results 
of  Chalcedon  by  the  so-called  Henoticon,5  with  the  result  that 
Pope  Felix  III  (483-492)  excommunicated  Acacius,  and  a 
schism  began  between  East  and  West  which  ended  in  519  in 
a  papal  triumph.  During  this  controversy  Pope  Gelasius  (492- 
496)  wrote  a  letter  to  Zeno's  successor,  the  Eastern  Emperor 
Anastasius,  in  which  he  declared  "  there  are  .  .  .  two  by  whom 
principally  this  world  is  ruled :  the  sacred  authority  of  the 
pontiffs  and  the  royal  power.  Of  these  the  importance  of  the 
priests  is  so  much  the  greater,  as  even  for  Kings  of  men  they 
will  have  to  give  an  account  in  the  divine  judgment."  6  In  - 
502  Bishop  Ennodius  of  Pavia  urged  that  the  Pope  can  be 
judged  by  God  alone.7  The  later  claims  of  the  mediaeval 
papacy  were,  therefore,  sketched  by  the  beginning  of  the 
sixth  century.  Circumstances  prevented  their  development 
in  full  practice  in  the  period  immediately  following.  The  rise 
of  the  Ostrogothic  kingdom  in  Italy  and  the  reconquest  of 

1  Letters,  2,  25 ;  Mirbt,  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  Papsttums,  54,  55. 

2  Sermons,  32-  3;  Ayer,  p.  477.  3  Mirbt,  p.  65.          4  Ayer,  p.  521. 
B  Ayer,  p.  527.                                      6  Ayer,  p.  531.          7  Mirbt,  p.  70. 


136  THE  RISE  OF  MONASTICISM 

Italy  by  the  Eastern  empire,  diminished  the  independence  of 
the  papacy.  Outside  of  Italy  the  growth  of  a  new  Catholic 
power,  the  Franks,  and  the  gradual  conversion  of  Arian  Ger 
manic  rulers,  brought  about  a  harmony  between  the  new  sover 
eigns  and  their  bishops  that  gave  to  the  latter  extensive  in 
dependence  of  Roman  claims,  though  accompanied  by  great 
dependence  on  the  Germanic  sovereigns.  The  full  realization 
of  the  papal  ideal,  thus  early  established,  was  to  be  a  task  of 
centuries,  and  was  to  encounter  many  vicissitudes. 

*,  SECTION  VII.      MONASTICISM 

? 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that  ascetic  ideals  and  a  double 
standard  of  Christian  morality  had  long  been  growing  in  the 
church  before  the  time  of  Constantine  (ante,  pp.  103, 104).  Their 
progress  was  aided  by  the  ascetic  tendencies  inherent  in  the 
better  philosophies  of  the  ancient  world.  Origen,  for  instance, 
who  was  permeated  with  the  Hellenistic  spirit,  was  distinguished 
for  his  asceticism.  Long  before  the  close  of  the  third  century 
the  holy  virgins  were  a  conspicuous  element  in  the  church, 
and  men  and  women,  without  leaving  their  homes,  were  prac- 

)   tising   asceticism.     Nor   is   asceticism,   or  even  monasticism, 
peculiar  to  Christianity.     Its  representatives  are  to  be  found  in 

;   the  religions  of  India  and  among  Jews,  Greeks,  and  Egyptians. 
Certain  causes  led  to  its  increased  development  contem 
porary  with  the  recognition  of  Christianity  by  the  state.     The 
low  condition  of  the  church,  (emphasized  by  the  influx  of  vast 
numbers  in  the  peace  from  260  to  303,  and  after  the  conver 
sion  of  Constantine,\ led  to  enlarged  valuation  of  the  ascetic 
life  by  serious-minded  Christians.     The  cessation  of  martyr- 
.  doms  left  asceticism  the  highest  Christian  achievement  attain- 

\1  able.     The  world  was  filled  with  sights  that  offended  Christian 
morality,  from  which  it  seemed  well  to  flee.     The  mind  of  an- 

/    tiquity  regarded  the  practice  of  contemplation  as  more  estima- 

V  ble  than  the  active  virtues.     Above  all,  the  extreme  formalism 

A  and  rigidity  of  public  worship,  as  developed  by  the  close  of 
/  the  third  century,  led  to  a  desire  for  a  freer  and  more  individual 

L  approach  to  God.     Monasticism  was  soon  to  become  formal 
enough ;  but  in  its  initiation  it  was  a  breach  with  the  limita- 
tions  of  conventional  Christian  worship  and  service.     It_was  W 
: :~:~  a  lavman>s  movement. 


EARLY  MONASTICISM  137 

:,  the  founder  of  Christian  monasticism,  was  born  in 
Koma,  in  central  Egypt,  about  250,  of  native  (Coptic)  stock.      ; 
Impressed  with  Christ's  words  to  the  rich  young  man,1  he  gave  * 
v/up  his  possessions,  and  about  270  took  up  the  ascetic  life  in/ 
his  native  vijlage.     Some  fifteen  years  later  he  went  into  the  L 
solitude,  becoming  a  hermit.     Here  he  is  said  to  have  lived    ) 
till  356  (?).     He  believed  himself  tormented  by  demons  in  every  / 
imaginable  form.     He  fasted.     He  practised  the  strictest  self-  V 
denial.     He  prayed  constantly.     He  would  draw  near  to  God 
by  overcoming  the  flesh.     Anthony  soon  had  many  imitators, 
some  of  whom  lived  absolutely  alone,  others  in  groups,  of  which 
the  largest  were  in  the  deserts  of  Nitria  and  Scetis.     Whether    / 
singly  or  in  groups,  these  monks  were  as  far  as  possible  hermit- 
like.     Their   worship   and   their   self-denials   were   largely   of  l 
their  own  devising. 

The  first  great  improver  of  monasticism  was  Pachomius. 
Born  about  292,  he  became  a  soldier,  and  was  converted  from 
heathenism  to  Christianity  when  perhaps  twenty  years  old. 
At  first  he  adopted  the  hermit  life,  but  dissatisfied  with  its 
irregularities,  he  established  the  first  Christian  monastery  in 
Tabennisi,  in  southern  Egypt,  about  315-320.  Here  all  the 
inmates  were  knit  into  a  single  body,  having  assigned  work, 
regular  hours  of  worship,  similar  dress,  and  cells  close  to  one 
another — in  a  word,  a  life  in  common  under  an  abbot.  This 
was  a  vastly  more  healthful  type  of  monasticism.  It  was  also 
one  possible  for  women,  for  whom  Pachomius  established  a  \/ 
convent.  At  his  death,  in  346,  there  were  ten  of  his  monasteries 
in  Egypt. 

^/  The  two  types,  the  hermit  form  of  Anthony  and  the  cenobite 
organization  of  Pachomius,  continued  side  by  side  in  Egypt, 
and  both  were  carried  from  that  land  to  the  rest  of  the  em 
pire.  Syria  saw  a  considerable  development  early  in  the  fourth  I 
century.  There  the  hermit  form  took  extravagant  expres-  ^ 
sion,  of  which  an  example,  a  little  later,  is  that  of  the  famous 
Simeon  gtvlitgs.  who  dwelt  for  thirty  years,  till  his  death  in 
459,  on  the  top  of  a  pillar,  situated  east  of  ^ntioph.  Mo 
nasticism  in  Asia  Minor,  on  the  other  hand,  continued  the 
tradition  of  Pachomius,  chiefly  owing  to  the  efforts  of  its  great 
^l  popularizer,  JBasjL  (ante,  p.  125),  who  labored  for  its  spread 
from  about  360  to  his  death  in  379.  The  Rule  which  bears 


1  Matt.  1921. 


138  THE  SPREAD  OF  MONASTICISM 

his  name,  whether  his  actual  composition  or  not,  was  even 

I  more  that  of  a  life  in  common  than  that  of  Pachomius.     It 

\  emphasized  work,  prayer,  and  Bible  reading.     It  taught  that 

monks  should  aid  those  outside  by  the  care  of  orphans,  and 

T  similar  good  deeds.     It  discouraged  extreme  asceticism.     Basil's 

/  Rule  is,  in  a  general  way,  a  basis  of  the  monasticism  of  the  Greek 

/  and  Russian  Churches  to  the  present  day,  though  with  much 

(^less  weight  laid  than   by   him  on   work   and    helpfulness   to 

others. 

/   The  introduction  of  monasticism  into  the  West  was  the 
work  of  Athanasius.     By  the  closing  years  of  the  fourth  cen- 
/tury  the  exhortations  and  examples  of  Jerome,  Ambrose,  and 
)  Augustine  brought  it  much  favor,  though  it  also  encountered 
/  no  little  opposition.     In  France  its  great  advocate  was  Martin 
Tpurs,  who  established  a  monastery  near  Poitiers  about 
Soon  monasticism,  both  in  its  cenobite  and  in  its  hermit 
orms,  was  to  be  found  throughout  the  West.     The  earliest 
monks,  as  in  the  East,  were  laymen ;  but  Eusebius,  bishop  of 
Vercelli  in  Italy,  who  died  in  371,  began  the  practice  of  requir 
ing  the  clergy  of  his  cathedral  to  live  the  monastic  life.     Through 
the  influence  of  this  example  it  gradually  became  the  custom 
for  monks  to  receive  priestly  ordination.     Such  clerical  consecra- 
;ion  became,  also,  the  rule  ultimately  in  the  East. 

Western  monasticism  was  long  in  a  chaotic  condition.  Indi 
vidual  monasteries  had  their  separate  rules.  Asceticism,  always 
characteristic  in  high  degree  of  Eastern  monasticism,  found 
many  disciples.  On  the  other  hand,  many  monasteries  were 
lax.  The  great  reformer  of  Western  monasticism  was  Benedict 
^of  Nursia.  Born  about  480,  he  studied  for  a  brief  time  in  Rome, 
but,  oppressed  by  the  evils  of  the  city,  he  became  a  hermit 
(c.  500)  in  a  cave  of  the  mountains  at  Subiaco,  east  of  Rome. 
The  fame  of  his  sanctity  gathered  disciples  about  him,  and  led 
to  the  offer  of  the  headship  of  a  neighboring  monastery,  which 
he  accepted  only  to  leave  when  he  found  its  ill-regulated  monks 
unwilling  to  submit  to  his  discipline.  At  some  uncertain  date, 
traditionally  529,  he  now  founded  the  mother  monastery  of 
the  Benedictine  order,  on  the  hill  of  Monte  Cassino,  about 
half-way  between  Rome  and  Naples.  To  it  he  gave  his  Rule, 
and  in  it  he  died;  the  last  certain  event  of  his  life,  his  meet 
ing  with  the  Ostrogothic  King,  Totila,  having  taken  place  in 
542. 


BENEDICT'S  RULE 


139 


Benedict's  famous  Rule1  exhibited  his  profound  knowledge 
of  human    nature    and  his  Roman  genius  for   organization. 


pe 


nr|<ai     self- 


contained  and  self-supporting  garri§Dii_,,QL  Christ' s_soldiers. 
At  Tts  head  was  an  abbot,  who  must,  he  implicitly  obeyed, 
yet  who  was  bound  in  grave  matters  of  common  concern 
to  consult  all  the  brethren,  and  in  minor  questions  the  elder 
monks:  None  wasjto~beconie__  a.  monk  without  having  fried 
life  of  the  mona^teryfor^a  year;  but,  ocuce^admitted,,  his, 
vowlPwere  irrevocable^ To~Benedict's  thinking,  wjorship  was 
undouBtediy  the ;  prime  dutyLJiL^-Jnojik.  Its  daily  common 
observance  occupied  at  least  four  hours,  divided  into  seven 
periods.  Almost  as  much  emphasis, was  laid  on. work.  "  Idle 
ness  is  the  enemy  of  the  spuTT'  Hence  Benedict  prescribed 
manual  labor  in  the  fields.and_ceadio£.  Some  fixed  time  must 


^ 

be  "spent  in  reading  eachday,  varying  with  the  seasons  of  the 
year;  and  in  Lent  books  must  be  assigned,  with  provision  to 
insure  their  being  read.  These  injunctions  made  every_Jiene- 
dictine  monastery,  at  all  true  to  the  founder  s  ideal,  a_centre 
of  lnxlul£^,Iancl  ±he_possesspr  of  a  library.  The  value  of  these, 
provisions  in  the  training  of  the  Germanic  nations  and  the\ 
preservation  of  literature  was  inestimable.  Yet  they  were  but' 
secondary  to  Benedict's  main  purpose,  that  of  worship.  In 
general,  Benedict's  Rule  was  characterized  by  great  modera 
tion  and  good  sense  in  its  requirements  as  to  food,  labor,  and 
discipline.  It  was  a  strict  life,  but  one  not  at  all  impossible 
for  the  average  earnest  man. 

.  In  the  Benedictine  system  early  Western  monasticism  is  to 
be  seen  at  its  best.  His_Rule  spread  slowly.  Itjwas  carried 
by  Roman  missionaries  to  England  and  Germany.  It  did  not 
penetrate  France  till  the  seventh  century;  but  by  the  time, of 
Charlemagne  it  had  become  well-nigh  universal.  With__the 
ilule  of  Benedict  the  adjustment  between  monasticism  and  the 
rc1rwas~TX5mplete.  The  services  of  its  monks  as  mission- 
afies~anct  pioneers  were  of  inestimable  value.  In  troubled 
times  the  monastery  afforded  the_ojily__re£uge  for  ^peace-loving 
vSpuls.  The  highest  proof  of  its  adaption  to  the  later  Roman 
Empire  and  the  Middle  Ages  was  that  not  only  the  best  men 
supported  the  institution;  they  were  to  be  found  in  it.  Its 

1  Extracts  in  Ayer,  pp.  631-641 ;  practically  in  full  in  Henderson,  Select 
Historical  Documents  of  the  Middle  Ages,  pp.  274-314. 


140  AMBROSE 

great  faults,  from  a  modern  point  of  view,  were  its  emphasis 
on  a  distinction  between  higher  and  lower  morality,  and  its 
discredit  of  the  life  of  the  Christian  family ;  but  both  were  in 
heritances  from  Christian  conditions  and  ideals  in  the  Roman 
Empire  antecedent  to  the  development  of  monasticism.  Mo- 
nasticism  was  their  product,  not  their  cause. 

SECTION  VIII.      AMBROSE  AND   CHRYSOSTOM 
j  V 

<K  The  contrast  between  East  and  West  is  in  many  ways  illus 
trated  by  the  unlike  qualities  and  experiences  of  Chrysostom 
and  Ambrose.  Ambrose  was  born  in  Trier,  now  in  western 
Germany,  where  his  father  held  the  high  civil  office  of  prae 
torian  prefect  of  Gaul,  about  337-340.  Educated  in  Rome  for 

'  £  civil  career,  his  talents,  integrity,  and  likableness  led  to  his 
/  appointment,  about  374,  as  governor  of  a  considerable  part  of 

^  northern  Italy,  with  his  residence  in  Milan,  then  practically 
an  imperial  capital.  The  death  of  the  Arian  bishop,  Auxen- 
tius,  in  374,  left  the  Milanese  see  vacant.  The  two  factions 
were  soon  in  bitter  struggle  as  to  the  theological  complexion 
of  his  successor.  The  young  governor  entered  the  church  to 
quiet  the  throng,  when  the  cry  was  raised,  "Ambrose  Bishop  I" 
and  he  found  himself,  though  unbaptized,  elected  bishop  of 
Milan.  To  Ambrose,  this  was  a  call  of  God.  He  gave  up  his 
wealth  to  the  poor  and  the  church.  He  studied  theology.  He 
became  a  most  acceptable  preacher.  Above  all,  he  possessed 
to  the  full  the  Roman  talent  for  administration,  and  he  soon 

Vbecame  the  first  ecclesiastic  of  the  West.  Strongly  attached 
to  the  Nicene  faith,  Ambrose  would  make  no  compromise  with 
the  Arians,  and  resisted  all  their  attempts  to  secure  places  of 
worship  in  Milan — an  effort  in  which  they  were  aided  by  the 
Empress  Justina,  mother  of  the  youthful  Valentinian  II.  In 
the  same  spirit  he  opposed  successfully  the  efforts  of  the  hea 
then  party  in  Rome  to  obtain  from  Valentinian  II  the  res 
toration  of  the  Altar  of  Victory  in  the  Senate  chamber,  and 
other  privileges  for  the  older  worship.  His  greatest  triumph 
was  in  the  case  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius.  That  quick 
tempered  ruler,  angered  by  the  murder  of  the  governor  of 
Thessalonica,  in  390,  caused  a  punitive  massacre  of  its  inhab- 
J  itants.  Ambrose,  with  rare  moral  courage,  called  on  the 
Emperor  to  manifest  his  public  repentance.1  It  throws  a 

1  Ayer,  pp.  390,  391. 


AMBROSE  AND  CHRYSOSTOM  141 

pleasing  light  on  the  character  of  Theodosius  that  he  obeyed 
the  admonition. 

Ambrose  was  a  theological  writer  of  such  reputation  that  ^ 
the  Roman  Church  reckons  him  as  one  of  its  "  Doctors " — or 
authoritative  teachers.  His  work,  however,  in  this  field  was 
largely  a  reproduction  of  the  thoughts  of  Greek  theologians, 
though  with  a  deeper  sense  of  sin  and  grace  than  they.  "I 
will  not  glory  because  I  am  righteous,  but  I  will  glory  because 
I  #m  redeemed.  I  will  not  glory  because  I  am  free  from  sin, 
.but  because  my  sins  are  forgiven."  l  Ambrose's  bent  was 
J  practical.  He  wrote  on  Christian  ethics,  in  full  sympathy  with 
the  ascetic  movement  of  the  time.  He  contributed  much  to 
the  development  of  Christian  hymnology  in  the  West.  Force 
ful  and  sometimes  overbearing,  he  was  a  man  of  the  highest 
personal  character  and  of  indefatigable  zeal — a  true  prince  of  the* 
church.  Such  men  were  needed  in  the  shock  of  the  collapsing 
empire  if  the  church  was  to  survive  in  power.  He  died  in  397. 

Very  different  was  the  life  of  Chrysostom.     John,  to  whom    ^ 
the  name  Chrysostom,  "golden-mouthed,"  was  given  long  after 
his  death,  was  born  of  noble  and  well-to-do  parents  in  An- 
tioch  about  345-347.     Losing  his  father  shortly  after  his  birth,    j 
he  was  brought  up  by  his  religious-minded  mother,  Anthusa,  / 
and  early  distinguished  himself  in  scholarship  and  eloquence.  *- 
About  370,  he  was  baptized  and  probably  ordained  a  "reader."      / 
He  now  practised  extreme  asceticism,  and  pursued  theological     \ 
studies  under  Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the 
later  Antiochian  school.     Not  satisfied  with  his  austerities,  he 
became  a  hermit  (c.  375),  and  so  remained  till  ill-health  com 
pelled  his  return  to  Antioch,  where  he  was  ordained  a  deacon 
(c.  381).     In  386  he  was  advanced  to  the  priesthood.     Then 
followed  the  happiest  and  most  useful  period  of  his  life.     For 
twelve  years  he  was  the  great  preacher  of  Antioch — the  ablest ,  / 
that  the  Oriental  Church  probably  ever  possessed.     His  ser 
mons  were  exegetical  and  eminently  practical.     The  simple, 
grammatical  understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  always  preferred 
in  Antioch  to  the  allegorical  interpretation  beloved  in  Alexan 
dria,  appealed  to  him.     His  themes  were  eminently  social — the 
Christian  conduct  of  life.     He  soon  had  an  enormous  following. 

Such  was  Chrysostom's  fame  that,  on  the  see  of  Constanti 
nople  falling  vacant,  he  was  practically  forced  by  Eutropius, 

1  De  Jacob  et  vita  beata,  1 :  621. 


J 


142  CHRYSOSTOM 

the  favorite  of  the  Emperor  Arcadius,  to  accept  the  bishopric 
Jof  the  capital  in  398.  Here  he  soon  won  a  popular  hearing 
like  that  of  Antioch.  From  the  first,  however,  his  way  in  Con 
stantinople  was  beset  with  foes.  The  unscrupulous  patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  Theophilus,  desired  to  bring  Constantinople 
into  practical  subjection.  Himself  the  opponent  of  Origen's 
teaching,  he  charged  Chrysostom  with  too  great  partiality  for 
that  master.  Chrysostom's  strict  discipline,  for  which  there 
(  was  ample  justification,  was  disliked  by  the  loose-living  clergy 
/  of  Constantinople.  Worst  of  all,  he  won  the  hostility  of  the 
J  vigorous  Empress  Eudoxia,  by  reasons  of  denunciations  of  femi 
nine  extravagance  in  dress,  which  she  thought  aimed  at  herself. 
Chrysostom  was  certainly  as  tactless  as  he  was  fearless  in  de 
nouncing  offenses  in  high  places.  All  the  forces  against  him 
gathered  together.  A  pretext  for  attack  soon  arose.  In  his 
opposition  to  Origen,  Theophilus  had  disciplined  certain  monks 
of  Egypt.  Four  of  these,  known  as  the  "tall  brothers,"  fled 
to  Chrysostom,  by  whom  they  were  well  received.  Theophilus 
and  Chrysostom's  other  enemies  now  secured  a  synod,  at  an 
imperial  estate  near  Constantinople  known  as  "The  Oak," 
which,  under  the  leadership  of  Theophilus,  condemned  and 
C  deposed  Chrysostom  in  403.  The  Empress  was  as  supersti- 
/  tious  as  she  was  enraged,  and  an  accident  in  the  palace — later 
tradition  pictured  it  probably  mistakenly  as  an  earthquake — led 
to  Chrysostom's  recall  shortly  after  he  had  left  the  capital. 
Peace  was  of  brief  duration.  A  silver  statue  of  the  Empress, 
erected  hard  by  his  cathedral,  led  to  denunciations  by  Chrys 
ostom  of  the  ceremonies  of  its  dedication.  The  Empress  saw 
in  him  more  than  ever  a  personal  enemy.  This  time,  in  spite 
of  warm  popular  support,  he  was  banished  to  the  miserable 
town  of  Cucusus,  on  the  edge  of  Armenia.  Pope  Innocent  I 
protested,  but  in  vain.  Yet  from  this  exile  Chrysostom  con 
tinued  so  to  influence  his  friends  by  letter  that  his  opponents 
determined  to  place  him  in  deeper  obscurity.  In  407  he  was 
ordered  to  Pityus,  but  he  never  reached  there,  dying  on  the 
journey. 

The  fate  of  this  most  deserving,  if  not  most  judicious,  preacher 

.of  righteousness  illustrates  the  seamy  side  of  imperial  inter- 

I  ference  in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  the  rising  jealousies  of  the 

I  great  sees  of  the  East,  from  whose  mutual  hostility  the  church 

/    and  the  empire  were  greatly  to  suffer. 


THE  CHRISTOLOGICAL  PROBLEM  143 


SECTION    IX.      THE   CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

The  Nicene  result  determined  that  Christ  is  fully  God,  and 
"was  made  man."  On  the  common  basis  of  Nicene  orthodoxy, 
however,  the  further  question  arose  as  to  the  relations  of  the 
divine  and  huinan  in  Him.  Regarding  that  problem  the  Nicene 
creed  was  silent,  and  even  the  great  Nicene  champion,  Athana- 
sius,  had  not  paid  much  attention  to  it.  Only  in  the  West 
had  a  general  formula  come  into  extensive  use.  As  the  Nicene 

^decision  had  been  largely  anticipated  by  Tertullian,  with  the 

^result  that  the  \Vest  had  been  united  when  the  East  was  divided, 
so  thanks  to  the  clear  definitions  of  that  great  African  writer, 
the  West  had  a  conception  of  full  deity  and  full  manhood  ex 
isting  in  Christ,  without  confusion,  and  without  diminution  of 
the  qualities  appropriate  to  each.  In  the  new  struggle,  as  in 
that  of  Nicsea,  the  Western  view  was  to  triumph.  Yet  neither  S 
in  its  conception  of  "one  substance  in  three  persons,"  nor  in  ^ 
that  of  "one  person,  Jesus,  God,  and  man"  (ante,  p.  69),  had  the 
West  any  wrought-out  philosophical  theory.  What  Tertullian 
had  given  it  were  clear-cut  judicial  definitions  of  traditional 
beliefs  rather  than  philosophically  thought-out  theology.  It 
"was  the  advantage  of  the  West  once  more,  as  in  the  Nicene 
struggle,  that  it  was  now  united,  even  if  its  thought  was  not 
so  profound  as  that  of  the  divided  East,  when  the  East  fairly 

I  began  to  wrestle  with  the  intellectual  problems  involved. 

]  It  was  possible  to  approach  the  Christological  problem  from 
two  angles.  The  unity  of  Christ  might  be  so  emphasized  as 
to  involve  a  practical  absorption  of  His  humanity  into  divinity ; 
or  the  integrity  of  each  element,  the  divine  and  the  human, 
maintained  in  such  fashion  as  to  give  color  to  the  interpreta 
tion  that  in  Him  were  two  separate  beings.  Both  tendencies 
were  manifested  in  the  controversy — the  first  being  that  toward 
which  the  theological  leaders  of  Alexandria  leaned,  and  the 
latter  being  derivable  from  the  teachings  of  the  school  of 
Antioch. 

The  first  and  one  of  the  ablest  of  those  who  undertook  a 
really  profound  discussion  of  the  relation  of  the  human  and  the 

^divine  in  Christ  was  Apollinaris,  bishop  of  Laodicea  in  Syria 
(?-c.  390).  A  hearty  supporter  of  the  Nicene  decision,  he  en 
joyed  for  a  considerable  time  at  least  the  friendship  of  Atha- 
nasius.  His  intellectual  gifts  were  such  as  to  command  respect 


144  APOLLINARIS 

even  from  his  opponents.     Moreover,  as  with  Athanasius,  Apol- 
linaris's   interest  was  primarily  religious.     To   both,  Christ's 
work  for  men  was  the  transformation  of  our  sinful  mortality 
into  divine  and  blessed  immortality.     This  salvation,  Apolli- 
naris  thought  with  Athanasius,  could  be  achieved  only  if  Christ 
was  completely  and  perfectly  divine.     But  how,  Apollinaris 
argued,  could  Christ  be  made  up  of  a  perfect  man  united  with 
complete  God  ?     Was  that  not  to  assert  two  Sons,  one  eternal, 
and  the  other  by  adoption  ? 1    Nor  could  Apollinaris  explain 
Christ's  sinlessness  or  the  harmony  of  His  wills,  if  Christ  was 
complete  man  joined  with  full  God.2    To  him,  the  best  solu- 
r,tion  seemed  akin  to  that  of  Arius,  whom  he  otherwise  opposed, 
/  that  in  Jesus  the  place  of  the  soul  was  taken  by  the  Logos, 
f  and  only  the  body  was  human.     That  view  having  been  con- 
Jdemned,  though  without  mention  of  his  name,  by  a  synod  in 
jAlexandria  in  362, 3  Apollinaris  apparently  altered  his  theory 
/so  as  to  hold  that  Jesus  had  the  body  and  animal  soul  of  a  man, 
but  that  the  reasoning  spirit  in  Him  was  the  Logos.4    At  the 
same  time  he  held  that  the  divine  so  made  the  human  one 
with  it — so  absorbed  it — that  "God  has  in  His  own  flesh  suf 
fered  our  sorrows."  5    These  opinions  seemed  to  do  special 
honor  to  Christ's  divinity,  and  were  destined  to  be  widely  and 
permanently  influential  in  Oriental  Christian  thinking,  but  they 
really  ^denied  Christ's  true  humanity,  and  as  such  speedily 
called  down  condemnation  on  their  author.     Rome  decided 
against  him  in  377  and  382,  Antioch  in  378,  and  finally  the 
i    so-called  Second  Ecumenical  Council — that  of  Constantinople 
>J    pin  381. 6 

Apollinaris  was  strongly  oppposed  by  Gregory  of  Nazianzus 
and  by  the  school  of  Antioch.  The  founoTef  of  the  latter,  in 
its  later  stage,  was  Diodorus  (?-394),  long  a  presbyter  of  An 
tioch,  and  from  378  to  his  death  bishop  of  Tarsus.  Its  roots, 
indeed,  ran  back  into  the  earlier  teaching  of  Paul  of  Samosata 
(ante,  p.  72)  and  Lucian  (ante,  p.  106) ;  but  the  extreme  posi 
tions  which  they  represented,  and  their  leadership,  were  re 
jected,  and  the  school  stood  on  the  basis  of  the  Nicene  ortho 
doxy.  It  was  marked  by  a  degree  of  literalism  in  its  exegesis 
of  Scripture  quite  in  contrast  to  the  excessive  use  of  allegory 

1  Ayer,  p.  495.  2  Ibid. 

8  Athanasius,  Tomus  ad  Antiochenos,  7. 

4  Ayer,  p.  495.  8  Ibid.,  p.  496.  6  Canon,  1. 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  ANTIOCH  145 

by  the  Alexandrians.     Its  philosophy  showed  the  influence  of 
Aristotle  as  theirs  that  of  Plato.     Its  thought  of  Christ  was 
more  influenced  by  the  tradition  of  Asia  Minor,  of  the  "second 
Adam,"  and  by  the  ancient  distinction  between  the  Jesus  of 
history  and  the  Christ  of  experience  than  was  Alexandria. 
Antioch,  therefore,  laid  more  weight  of  teaching  on  the  earthly 
life  and'human  nature  of  Jesus  than  was  the  tendency  in  Alex 
andria.     In  this  attempt  to  give  true  value  to  Christ's  human 
ity,  Diodorus  approached  the  view  that  in  Christ  were  two  per 
sons  in  moral  rather  than  essential  union.     Since  the  Logos  is  t 
eternal  and  like  can  only  bear  like,  that  which  was  born  of  Mary 
was  the  human  only.     The  incarnation  was  the  indwelling  of  j 
the  Logos  in  a  perfect  man,  as  of  God  in  a  temple.    These  views ; 
are   reminiscent   of   the   adoptionist   Christology,   which   had ' 
found  one  of  its  latest  avowed  defenders  in  Paul  of  Samosata 
in  Antioch  a  century  earlier.     They  were  out  of  touch  with  the 
v/  Greek  conception  of  salvation — the  making  divine  of  the  human. 

Among  the  disciples  of  Diodorus  were  Chrysostom  (ante,  p. 
141),  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  Nestorius.  Theodore,  a 
native  of  Antioch,  who  held  the  bishopric  for  which  he  is 
named  for  thirty-six  years,  till  his  death  in  428,  was  the  ablest 
exegete  and  theologian  of  the  Antiochian  school.  Though  he 
maintained  that  God  and  man  in  Christ  constituted  one  per 
son — prosopon,  irpocrwrrov — he  had  difficulty  in  making  that  con 
tention  real,  and  held  theories  practically  identical  with  those 
of  Diodorus.1 

Nestorius.  a  presbyter  and  monk  of  Antioch,  held  in  high 
repute  th*ere  as  a  preacher,  was  made  patriarch  of  Constanti 
nople  in  428.  Recent  discoveries,  especially  of  his  own  auto 
biographical  work,  The  Treatise  of  Heraclides  of  Damascus, 
have  immensely  broadened  knowledge  of  his  real  theological 
position,  as  well  as  of  the  facts  of  his  later  life.  His  dogmatic 
standpoint  was  essentially  that  of  the  school  of  Antioch;  yet 
he  would  not  admit  that  there  \vere  in  Christ  two  persons — 
the  doctrine  with  which  he  was  charged.  "With  the  one  name 
Christ  we  designate  at  the  same  time  two  natures.  .  .  .  The 
essential  characteristics  in  the  nature  of  the  divinity  and  in 
the  humanity  are  from  all  eternity  distinguished."  2  Perhaps 
his  furthest  departure  from  the  current  Greek  conception  of 
salvation  is  to  be  seen  in  such  an  expression  as :  "  God  the  Word 

1  Ayer,  pp.  498-501.  2  Ibid.,  p.  502. 


J 


\ 


146      THE  ALEXANDRIAN  INTERPRETATION 

is  also  named  Christ  because  He  has  always  conjunction  with 
Christ.  And  it  is  impossible  for  God  the  Word  to  do  anything 
without  the  humanity,  for  all  is  planned  upon  an  intimate 
conjunction,  not  on  the  deification  of  the  humanity."  1  Nes- 
torius  would  emphasize  the  reality  and  completeness  of  the 
human  in  the  Christian's  Lord. 

Opposed  to  Nestorius,  and  to  be  his  bitterest  enemy,  was 
Cyril,  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria  (412-444),  the  nephew  and 
successor  of  the  patriarch  who  had  had  so  unworthy  a  part  in 
the  downfall  of  Chrysostom.  In  him  unscrupulous  ambition 
combined  with  the  jealousy  of  Constantinople  long  entertained 
in  Alexandria  —  and  it  must  be  admitted,  reciprocated  —  and 
with  the  hostility  of  the  rival  schools  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch. 
Yet  it  is  but  just  to  Cyril  to  note  that  there  was  more  in  his 
opposition  to  Nestorius  than  mere  jealousy  and  rivalry,  how 
ever  prominent  those  unlovely  traits  may  have  been.  Cyril, 
following  the  Alexandrian  tradition,  and  in  consonance  with  the 
Greek  conception  of  salvation,  saw  in  Christ  the  full  making 
divine  of  the  human.  Though  he  rejected  the  view  of  Apol- 
linaris  and  held  that  Christ's  humanity  was  complete  in  that 
it  possessed  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  he  really  stood  very  near  to 
Apollinaris.  His  emphasis  on  the  divine  in  Christ  was  such 
that,  though  he  described  the  union  in  Him  as  that  of  "two 
natures,"  the  only  personality  in  Christ  was  that  of  the  Logos. 
The  Logos  "took  flesh,"  He  clothed  Himself  with  humanity. 
The  human  element  had  no  personality  apart  from  the  Logos. 
Jesus  was  not  an  individual  man.  Yet  while  Cyril  held  to 
an  interchange  of  qualities  between  the  divine  and  the  human, 
each  is  a  complete  nature.  "  From  two  natures,  one"  ;  and  that 
one  personality  is  the  divine.  For  Cyril  it  was,  therefore, 
God  made  flesh,  who  was  born,  who  died,  of  whom  we  partake 
in  the  Supper,  and  whose  making  divine  of  humanity  is  the 
proof  and  means  that  we,  too,  shall  be  made  partakers  of  the 
divine  nature.2  If  the  school  of  Antioch  came  near  such  a 
separation  of  the  divine  and  the  human  as  to  leave  Christ 
only  the  Son  of  God  by  adoption,  that  of  Cyril  allowed  Him 
little  more  than  an  impersonal  humanity  absorbed  in  divinity. 

An  ancient  designation  of  the  Mother  of  Jesus  was  "  Mother  of 
God"—  Theotokos,  ©eoroW?.  It  had  been  used  by  Alexander  of 
Alexandria,  Athanasius,  Apollinaris,  and  Gregory  of  Nazianzus. 

1  Ayer,  p.  502.  2  See  Ayer,  pp.  505-507. 


THE  "MOTHER  OF  GOD"  147 

To  Cyril  it  was,  of  course,  a  natural  expression.  Everywhere 
in  the  East  it  may  be  said  to  have  been  in  good  usage,  save 
where  the  school  of  Antioch  had  influence,  and  even  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia  of  that  school  was  willing  to  employ  the  expres 
sion,  if  carefully  guarded.1  Nestorius  found  it  current  coin  in 
Constantinople.  To  his  thinking  it  did  not  sufficiently  dis 
tinguish  the  human  from  the  divine  in  Christ.  He  therefore 
preached  against  it,  at  the  beginning  of  his  bishopric,  declaring 
the  proper  form  to  be  "Mother  of  Christ"— "for  that  which 
is  born  of  flesh  is  flesh."  Yet  even  he  expressed  himself  a 
little  later  as  willing  to  say  Theotokos,  in  the  guarded  way  in 
which  Theodore  would  employ  it.  "  It  can  be  endured  in  con 
sideration  of  the  fact  that  the  temple,  which  is  inseparably 
united  with  God  the  Word,  comes  of  her."  3  In  preaching 
against  this  expression  Nestorius  had  touched  popular  piety 
and  the  rising  religious  reverence  for  the  Virgin  on  the  quick. 
Cyril  saw  his  opportunity  to  humiliate  the  rival  see  of  Con 
stantinople  and  the  school  of  Antioch  at  one  blow,  while  ad 
vancing  his  own  Christology.  Cyril  promptly  wrote  to  the 
Egyptian  monks  defending  the  disputed  phrase,  and  'there 
soon  followed  an  exchange  of  critical  letters  between  Cyril  and 
Nestorius.  It  speedily  came  to  an  open  attack  on  the  patri 
arch  of  Constantinople.  • 

Cyril  now  brought  every  influence  at  his  command  to  his 
aid  in  one  of  the  most  repulsive  contests  in  church  history. 
He  appealed  to  the  Emperor  and  Empress,  Theodosius  II  and 
Eudocia,  and  to  the  Emperor's  sister,  Pulcheria,  representing 
that  Nestorius's  doctrines  destroyed  all  basis  of  salvation. 
He  presented  his  case  to  Pope  Celestine  I  (422-432).  Nes 
torius,  in  his  turn,  also  wrote  to  the  Pope.  Celestine  promptly 
found  in  favor  of  Cyril,  and  ordered,  through  a  Roman  synod 
in  430,  that  Nestorius  recant  or  be  excommunicated.  The 
action  of  the  Pope  is  hard  to  understand.  The  letter  of  Nes 
torius  agreed  more  nearly  in  its  definition  of  the  question  at 
issue  with  the  Western  view  than  did  the  theory  of  Cyril.  Nes 
torius  declared  his  faith  in  "  both  natures  which  by  the  highest 
and  unmixed  union  are  adored  in  the  one  person  of  the  Only 
Begotten."  4  Politics  were  probably  the  determining  factor. 
Rome  and  Alexandria  had  long  worked  together  against  the 

1  Ayer,  p.  500.  2  Ibid.,  p.  501.  a  Ibid. 

4  In  Loofs,  Nestoriana,  p.  171. 


j 


148  THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

rising  claims  of  Constantinople.  Nestorius  was  less  respectful 
in  his  address  to  the  Pope  than  Cyril.  Moreover,  without  being 
a  Pelagian,  Nestorius  had  given  some  degree  of  favor  to  the 
Pelagians  whom  the  Pope  opposed  (see  p.  187).  Nestorius's 
attack  on  the  much-prized  Theotokos  was  also  displeasing  to 
Celestine. 

The  empire  being  now  widely  involved  in  the  dispute,  the 
two  Emperors,  Theodosius  II  of  the  East,  and  Valentinian  III 
in  the  West,  called  a  general  council  to  meet  in  Ephesus  in 
431.  Cyril  and  his  followers  were  early  on  hand,  as  was  Nes 
torius,  but  the  friends  of  Nestorius  were  slow  in  arriving. 
Cyril  and  Memnon,  bishop  of  Ephesus  promptly  organized 
such  of  the  council  as  were  present  and  they  could  secure. 

v  Nestorius  was  condemned  and  deposed  in  a  single  day's  ses 
sion.1    A  few  days  later  Nestorius's  friends,  led  by  John,  the 
patriarch  of  Antioch,  arrived.     They  organized  and,  in  turn, 

v  condemned  and  deposed  Cyril  and  Memnon.2     Cyril's  council, 

meanwhile,  had  been  joined  by  the  papal  delegates,  and  added 

/John  to  its  list  of  deposed,  at  the  same  time  condemning  Pela- 

^  gianism  (see  p.  188),  doubtless  to  please  the  West.  The 
Emperor  Theodosius  II  was  at  a  loss  as  to  what  course  to 
pursue.  Nestorius  retired  to  a  monastery.  Theodosius  im 
prisoned  Cyril  and  Memnon  as  trouble-makers,  but  politics 
inclined  to  their  side  and  they  were  soon  allowed  to  return  to 
their  sees.  The  real  victim  was  Nestorius,  and  worse  was  to 

\f  follow. 

Antioch  and  Alexandria  were  now  in  hostility  more  than 
ever,  but  both,  under  imperial  pressure,  were  made  willing  to 
compromise.  Antioch  would  sacrifice  Nestorius,  and  Cyril 
concede  something  to  Antioch  in  creedal  formula.  Accord 
ingly,  in  433,  John  of  Antioch  sent  to  Cyril  a  creed  composed, 
it  is  probable,  by  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  then  the  leading  theo 
logian  of  the  school  of  Antioch.  This  creed  was  more  Anti- 
ochian  than  Alexandrian,  though  it  could  be  interpreted  in 
either  direction.  "We  therefore  acknowledge  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  .  .  .  complete  God  and  complete  man.  ...  A  union 
of  the  two  natures  has  been  made,  therefore  we  confess  one 
Christ.  .  .  .  The  holy  Virgin  is  Theotokos,  because  God  the 
Word  was  made  flesh  and  became  man,  and  from  her  concep 
tion  united  with  Himself  the  temple  received  from  her."  3 
1  Ayer,  p.  507.  2  Ibid.,  509.  3  Ibid.,  pp.  510,  511. 


THE  FATE  OF  NESTORIUS  149 

Cyril  now  signed  this  creed,  though  without  retracting  any  of 
his  former  utterances.  By  so  doing  he  made  irrevocable  the 
overthrow  of  Nestorius.  Yet  Nestorius  could  have  signed  it 
even  more  willingly  than  he.  This  agreement  enabled  Cyril 
to  secure  general  recognition  in  the  East  for  his  council  of  431, 
in  Ephesus — ih  the  West  the  participation  of  papal  representa 
tives  had  always  accredited  it  as  the  Third  General  Council. 

Nestorius  himself 'was  banished  to  upper  Egypt.  There  he 
lived  a  miserable  existence,  and  there  he  wrote,  certainly  as 
late  as  the  autumn  of  450,  his  remarkable  Treatise  of  Heraclides 
of  Damascus.  Whether  he  survived  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (/ 
is  uncertain.  There  is  some  reason  to  think  that  he  did.  At 
all  events  he  rejoiced  in  the  steps  which  led  to  it,  and  felt 
himself  in  sympathy  with  the  views  which  were  then  pro 
claimed  orthodox. 

Not  all  of  Nestorius's  sympathizers  shared  in  his  desertion., 
Ibas,  the  leading  theologian  of  the  Syrian  school  of  Edessa^  */ 
supported  his  teaching.     Persecuted  in  the  empire,  Nestorian- 
ism  found  much  following  even  in  Syria,  and  protection  in 
Persia.     There  it  developed  a  wide  missionary  activity.     In  ~/ 
the  seventh  century  it  entered  China,  and  about  the  same  time 
southern  India.     Nestorian  churches  still  exist  in  the  region 
where  Turkey  and  Persia  divide  the  territory  between  Lake 
Urumia  and  the  upper  Tigris,  and  also  in  India. 

The  agreement  of  433  between  Antioch  and  Alexandria  was, 
in  reality,  but  a  truce.  The  division  of  the  two  parties  but  in 
creased.  Cyril  undoubtedly  represented  the  majority  of  the 
Eastern  Church,  with  his  emphasis  on  the  divine  in  the  person 
of  Christ,  at  the  expense  of  reducing  the  human  to  an  im 
personal  humanity.  Though  he  vigorously  rejected  Apolli- 
narianism,  his  tendency  was  that  of  Apollinaris.  It  had  the 
sympathy  of  the  great  party  of  monks;  and  many,  especially 
in  Egypt,  went  further  than  Cyril,  and  viewed  Christ's  human 
ity  as  practically  absorbed  in  His  divinity,  so  that  He  pos 
sessed  one  nature  only,  and  that  divine.  Cyril  died  in  444, 
and  was  succeeded  as  patriarch  of  Alexandria  by  Dioscurus, 
a  man  of  far  less  intellectual  acumen  and  religious  motive,  but 
even  more  ambitious,  if  possible,  to  advance  the  authority  of 
the  Alexandrian  see.  Two  years  later,  446,  a  new  patriarch, 
Flavian,  took  the  bishop's  throne  in  Constantinople.  Though 
little  is  known  of  his  early  history,  it  seems  probable  that  his 


150  DIOSCURUS,  FLAVIAN,  AND  LEO 

sympathies  were  with  the  school  of  Antioch.  From  the  first, 
Flavian's  course  promised  to  be  stormy.  He  had  the  opposi 
tion  not  only  of  Dioscurus,  but  of  the  imperial  favorite  minis 
ter,  Chrysaphius,  who  had  supplanted  Pulcheria  in  the  counsels 
of  Theodosius  II.  Chrysaphius  was  a  supporter  of  the  Alex 
andrians. 

r  Occasion  for  quarrel  soon  arose.  Dioscurus  planned  an  at 
tack  on  the  remaining  representatives  of  the  Antiochian  school 
as  Nestorian  heretics.  In  sympathy  with  this  effort,  and  as  a 
leader  of  the  monastic  party,  on  the  help  of  which  Dioscurus 
counted,  stood  the  aged  abbot  or  "archimandrite,"  Eutyches 
of  Constantinople,  a  man  of  little  theological  ability,  a  partisan 
of  the  late  Cyril,  and  influential  not  only  by  reason  of  his 
popularity,  but  by  the  friendship  of  Chrysaphius.  Eutyches 
was  now  charged  with  heresy  by  Bishop  Eusebius  of  Dorylseum. 
Flavian  took  up  the  case  with  reluctance,  evidently  knowing 
its  possibilities  of  mischief ;  but  at  a  local  synod  in  Constanti 
nople,  late  in  448,  Eutyches  was  examined  and  condemned. 
His  heresy  was  that  he  affirmed  :  "  I  confess  that  our  Lord  was 
of  two  natures  before  the  union  [i.  e.y  the  incarnation],  but 
after  the  union  one  nature."  l 

Rome  had  now  one  of  the  ablest  of  its  Popes  in  the  person 
of  Leo  I  (440-461)  (see  ante,  p.  135),  and  to  Leo  both  Eutyches 
and  Flavian  speedily  presented  the  case.2  To  Flavian,  whom 
he  heartily  supported,  Leo  wrote  his  famous  letter  of  June,  449, 
usually  called  the  Tome,3  in  which  the  great  Pope  set  forth 
a  the  view  which  the  West  had  entertained  since  the  time  of 
Tertullian,  that  in  Christ  were  two  full  and  complete  natures, 
which,  "  without  detracting  from  the  properties  of  either  nature 
and  substance,  came  together  in  one  person."  What  may  be 
said,  chiefly  in  criticism  of  Leo's  letter  is  that,  while  represent 
ing  clearly  and  truly  the  Western  tradition,  it  did  not  touch 
the  intellectual  depths  to  which  the  subtler  Greek  mind  had 
carried  its  speculations.  Probably  it  was  well  that  it  did  not. 

Meanwhile  Dioscurus  was  moving  actively  in  Eutyches's 
defense  and  the  extension  of  his  own  claims.  At  his  instance 
the  Emperor  called  a  general  council  to  meet  in  Ephesus  in 
August,  449.  At  Ephesus  Dioscurus  was  supreme.  Eutyches 
was  rehabilitated,  Flavian  and  Eusebius  of  Dorylseum  con- 

1  Ayer,  pp.  513,  514.    :  »  Letters  of  Leo,  20-28. 

3  Ibid.,  28 ;  extracts,  Ayer,  p.  515. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON  151 

demned.  Leo's  Tome  was  denied  a  reading.  It  was  a  stormy 
meeting,  but  probably  not  more  so  than  that  of  Ephesus,  in 
431,  or  Chalcedon,  in  451.  Flavian  died  shortly  after,  and 
rumor  had  it  in  consequence  of  physical  violence  at  the  council. 
The  report  seems  unfounded.  Dioscurus  had  achieved  a  great 
victory,  but  at  the  fatal  cost  of  a  rupture  of  the  ancient  alliance 
between  Alexandria  and  Rome.  Leo  promptly  denounced  the 
council:as  a  "synod  of  robbers";  but  the  Emperor,  Theodosius 
II,  gave  it  his  hearty  support  and  a  sympathizer  with  Di 
oscurus  became  patriarch  of  Constantinople. 

Leo  had  no  success  with  Theodosius  II,  but  much  with  the 
Emperor's  sister,  Pulcheria;  and  the  situation  was  profoundly 
altered  when  the  accidental  death  of  Theodosius  in  July,  450, 
put  Pulcheria  and  her  husband,  Marcian,  on  the  throne.  The 
new  sovereigns  entered  at  once  into  relations  with  Leo.  The 
Pope  wished  a  new  council  in  Italy,  where  his  influence  would 
have  been  potent,  but  this  did  not  satisfy  imperial  politics. 
The  new  General  Council  was  called  to  meet  in  Nicsea,  in  the 
autumn  of  451.  Imperial  convenience  led  to  the  change  of 
place  to  Chalcedon,  opposite  Constantinople,  and  there  some 
six  hundred  bishops,  all  but  the  papal  delegates  and  two  others 
from  the  Orient,  assembled  in  what  has  ever  since  been  known 
as  the  Fourth  Ecumenical  Council  (that  of  Ephesus,  in  449, 
being  rejected). 

The  council  proceeded  rapidly  with  its  work.     Dioscurus 
was  deposed  and  sent  into  exile  by  imperial  authority,  where  he 
died  three  years  later.     After  imperial  pressure  had  been  ex 
erted,  a  commission  was  appointed,  of  which  the  papal  dele 
gates  were  members,  to  ^r^^inDa^reed..     Its  production  was 
promptly  ratified  by  the  counciL     The  result  was,  indeed,  a 
Western  triumph.     Rome  had  given  the  decision  to  the  ques 
tion  at  issue,  and  in  so  doing  had  made  a  compromise  between 
(the  positions  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria  that  was  wholly  satis 
factory  to  neither.     The  result  was  a  lengthy  document,  recit- 
Cing  the   so-called   Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan   creed  (ante,  p. 
/128),  approving  Leo's  Tome,  and  condemning  previous  heresies.1 
Its  essential  part — the  creed  of  Chalcedon — is  as  follows : 

We,  then,  following  the  holy  Fathers,  all  with  one  consent, 
teach  men  to  ^onfre*  ""**  «"H  fhp  gfime  Son,  our  Lor 

1  Ayer,  pp.  517-521. 


y 


152  THE  CREED  OF  CHALCEDON 


the  same  perfect  In  Godhead  p"rl  Q^r>  p^rJWvf-  Jr.  m^y^  ;_truly 
God  and  trul^m^n,  of  a  reasonable  soul  and  body;  consubstantial 
(ojjLOovcnov)  with  the  Father  according  to  the  Godhead,  ancLcon- 
substantial  with,  .us  -according  to  the  manhood,  in  all  things  like 
unto  us,  without  sin;  begotten  before  all  ages  of  the  Father  accord 
ing  to  the  Godhead,  and  in  these  latter  days,  for  us  and  for  our  sal 
vation,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  the  Mother  of  God  (Theotokos), 
according  to  the  manhood;  one  and  the  same  Christ,  Son,  Lord, 
Only-begotten,  in  two  natures,  inconfusedly,  unchangeably,  in- 
divisibly,  inseparably,  the  distinction  of  natures  being  by  no 
means  taken  away  by  the  union,  but  rather  the  property  of  each 
nature  being  preserved,  and  concurring  in  one  person  (prosopon) 
and  one  subsistence  (hypostasis)  ,  not  parted  or  divided  into  two 
persons,  but  one  and  the  same  Son  and  Only-begotten,  God  the 
Word,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  as  the  prophets  from  the  beginning 
have  declared  concerning  Him,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself 
has  taught  us,  and  the  creed  of  the  holy  Fathers  has  handed  down 
to  us. 

Such  is  the  creed  that  has  ever  since  been  regarded  in  the 
Greek,  Latin,  and  most  Protestant  Churches  as  the  "  ortho 
dox"  solution  of  the  Christological  problem.     It  is  easy  to 
criticise  it.     Its  adoption  was  greatly  involved  in  ecclesiastical 
politics.     It  solved  few  of  the  intellectual  difficulties  regarding 
Christology  which  had  been  raised  in  the  East.     It  did  not 
,/  even  heal  the  Christological  quarrels.     But,  when  all  is  ad 
mitted,  it  must  be  said  that  its  formulation  was  fortunate  and 
its  consequences  useful.     It  established  a  norm  of  doctrine  in 
a  field  in  which  there  had  been  great  confusion.     More  im 
portant  than  that,  it  was  true  to  the  fundamental  conviction 
I  of  the  church  that  in  Christ  a  complete  revelation  of  God  is 
^  made  in  terms  of  a  genuine  human  life. 

If  a  coincidence  of  imperial  and  Roman  interests  had  secured 
a  great  dogmatic  victory  for  Rome,  the  imperial  authority  was 
determined  that  the  victory  should  not  be  one  of  Roman  juris 
diction.  By  a  canon,  against  which  Leo  protested,  the  council 
exalted  the  claims  of  Constantinople  to  a  dignity  like  that  of 
Rome  (ante,  p.  135).  Nor  was  the  downfall  of  Alexandria  less 
damaging.  Alexandrian  rivalry  of  Constantinople  had  been 
Rome's  advantage  in  the  East.  Now  successful  rivalry  was 
at  an  end,  for  the  consequences  of  the  Chalcedonian  decision 
^f  crippled  Alexandria  permanently.  By  the  council  the  historic 
distribution  of  the  Orient  was  completed,  Jerusalem  being  given 


THE  MONOPHYSITE  REVOLT  153 

the  patriarchal  standing  which  it  had  long  claimed,  side  by 
side  with  the  three  older  patriarchates,  Constantinople,  Alexan 
dria,  and  Antioch. 


f SECTION   X.      THE   EAST  DIVIDED 

The  creed  of  Chalcedon  was  now  the  official  standard  of 
the  empire.  Its  Western  origin  and  spirit  made  it  unaccept 
able,  however,  to  a  large  portion  of  the  East.  To  many  Ori 
entals  it  seemed  "Nestorian."  This  was  especially  true  in 
those  regions  which  shared  most  strongly  in  the  Alexandrian 
tendency  to  emphasize  the  divine  in  Christ  at  the  expense  of 
the  fully  human,  and  these  elements  of  opposition  included '7 
most  of  the  monks,  the  old  native  stock  of  Egypt  generally,  \ 
and  a  large  portion  of  the  population  of  Syria  and  Armenia. 
Undoubtedly  {he  tendencies  which  the  "orthodox"  Cyril  and 
his  heretical  successor,  Dioscurus,  had  represented  were  con- 
sonant  with  the  Greek  conception  of  salvation,  and  seemed 
to  do  special  honor  to  Christ.  These  rejecters  of  the  creed 
of  Chalcedon  included  many  shades  of  opinion,  but  as  a  whole 
they  showed  little  departure  from  Cyril.  Their  chief  differ 
ence  from  Chalcedon  and  the  West  was  one  of  emphasis. 
They  rejected  Eutyches,  yet  most  of  them  would  say  "of  two 
natures,"  provided  it  was  understood  that  the  human  and  di 
vine  were  united  in  the  incarnation  into  one  nature,  and  that 
essentially  divine,  with  human  attributes.  As  with  Cyril,  this 
humanity  was  impersonal,  and,  perhaps,  even  more  than  with 
him  it  was  transformed  into  divinity,  so  that  without  ceasing, 
in  a  certain  sense,  to  be  human,  it  was  properly  describable  as 
one  divine  nature.  Hence  the  opponents  of  Chalcedon  were 
>/ called  Monophysites — believers  in  one  nature. 

Immediately  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  Palestine  and, 
next,  Egypt  were  in  practical  revolution,  which  the  government 
was  able  only  slowly  to  master.  By  457  the  see  of  Alexandria 
was  in  possession  of  a  Monophysite,  Timothy,  called  by  his 
enemies  the  Cat;  by  461,  Peter  the  Fuller,  of  the  same  faith, 
held  that  of  Antioch.  These  captures  were  not  to  be  perma 
nent,  but  the  native  populations  of  Egypt  and  Syria  were 
throwing  off  the  dominance  of  Constantinople  and  largely 
sympathized  with  the  Monophysite  protest.  In  Antioch  Peter 
the  Fuller  caused  fresh  commotion  by  adding  to  the  Trisagion, 


154  COMPROMISE  EFFORTS 

so  that  the  ascription  ran:  "Holy  God,  holy  Strong,  holy  Im 
mortal,  who  ivas  crucified  for  us." 

The  empire  found  itself  grievously  'threatened,  politically  no 
less  than  religiously,  by  these  disaffections;  and  much  of  the 
imperial  policy  for  more  than  two  centuries  was  devoted  to 
their  adjustment,  with  slight  permanent  success.  In  the  con 
test  between  Zeno  and  Basilicus  for  the  imperial  throne,  the 
latter  made  a  direct  bid  for  Monophysite  support  by  issuing, 
in  476,  an  Encyclion,  in  which  he  anathematized  "the  so-called 
Tome  of  Leo,  and  all  things  done  at  Chalcedon  "  in  modification 
of  the  Nicene  creed.1  For  such  a  reversal  the  East  was  not 
yet  ready,  and  this  action  of  Basilicus  was  one  of  the  causes 
that  led  to  his  overthrow  by  Zeno.  Zeno,  however,  probably 
induced  by  the  patriarch  Acacius  of  Constantinople,  made  a 
I  new  attempt  to  heal  the  schism.  In  482  he  published  his 
I  famous  Henoticon.2  In  it  the  results  of  fhe  Councils  of  Nicsea 
and  Constantinople  were  confirmed,  Nestorius  and  Eutyches 
condemned,  and  Cyril's  "twelve  chapters"3  approved.  It 
gave  a  brief  Christological  statement,  the  exact  relationship  of 
which  to  that  of  Chalcedon  was  not,  and  was  not  intended  to 
be,  clear.  Its  chief  significance  was  in  the  declaration :  "  These 
things  we  write,  not  as  making  an  innovation  upon  the  faith, 
but  to  satisfy  you ;  and  every  one  who  has  held  or  holds  any 
other  opinion,  either  at  the  present  or  at  another  time,  whether 
at  Chalcedon  or  in  any  synod  whatever,  we  anathematize." 
This  left  it  free  to  hold  the  Chalcedonian  creed  to  be  errone 
ous.  The  consequence  was  not  peace  but  confusion.  While 
many  Monophysites  accepted  it,  the  Monophysite  extremists 
would  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Henoticon.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Roman  see,  feeling  its  honor  and  its  orthodoxy  at 
tacked  by  this  practical  rejection  of  Chalcedon,  excommuni 
cated  Acacius  and  broke  off  relations  with  the  East,  the  schism 
continuing  till  519,  when  the  Emperor  Justin  renewed  the 
authority  of  Chalcedon,  under  circumstances  that  increased 
the  prestige  of  the  papacy,4  but  only  alienated  Egypt  and  Syria 
the  more. 

!  Justin's  successor,  the  great  Justinian  (527-565),  more  fully 
than  any  other  of  the  Eastern  Emgerors,  succeeded  in  making 
himself  master  of  the  church.  His  conspicuous  military  suc- 

1  Ayer,  pp.  523-526.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  527-529. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  505-507.  4  Ante,  p.  135 ;  see  Ayer,  p.  536. 


JUSTINIAN'S  POLICY  155 

cesses  restored  to  the  empire  for  a  time  control  of  Italy  and 
North  Africa.  The  church  was  now  practically  a  department 
of  the  state.  Heathenism  was  suppressed  and  persecuted  as 
never  before.  While  Justinian  himself  was,  at  first,  strongly 
Chalcedonian  in  his  sympathies,  his  Empress,  Theodora,  leaned 
to  the  Monophysite  side.  He  soon  gave  up  the  persecution  of 
Monophysites  with  which  his  reign  began.  Himself  one  of  the 
ablest  theological  minds  of  the  age,  he  sought  to  develop  an 
ecclesiastical  policy  that  would  so  interpret  the  creed  of  Chal- 
/cedon  that,  while  leaving  it  technically  untouched,  would  ex 
clude  any  possible  Antiochian  or  "Nestorian"  construction, 
thus  bringing  its  significance  fully  into  accord  with  the  the 
ology  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria.  By  this  means  he  hoped  to  pla 
cate  the  Monophysites,  and  also  to  satisfy  the  wishes  of  the 
East  generally,  whether  "orthodox"  or  Monophysite,  without 
offending  Rome  and  the  West  too  deeply  by  an  actual  rejection 
of  the  Chalcedonian  decision.  Hence  the  establishment  of  a 
Cyrillic-Chalcedonian  orthodoxy  was  Justinian's  aim.  It  was 
a  difficult  task.  As  far  as  concerned  a  satisfaction  of  the  Mo 
nophysites  in  general  it  failed.  In  its  effort  to  render  the  Cyril 
lic  interpretation  of  the  creed  of  Chalcedon  the  only  "ortho 
dox  "  view  it  succeeded.  Any  form  of  Antiochianism  was  perma 
nently  discredited.  By  this  result  Justinian  undoubtedly 
satisfied  the  wishes  of  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the 
"orthodox"  East. 

Justinian  was  greatly  aided  in  his  task  by  the  rise  of  a  fresh 
interpretation  of  the  Chalcedonian  creed,  in  the  teaching  of  a 
monastic  theologian,  Leontius  of  Byzantium  (c.  485-543).  The 
age  was  witnessing  a  revival  of  the  Aristotelian  philosophy, 
and  Leontius  applied  Aristotelian  distinctions  to  the  Chris- 
tological  problems.  The  feeling  of  much  of  the  East,  both 
"orthodox"  and  Monophysite,  was  that  the  affirmation  of 
two  natures  in  Christ  could  not  be  interpreted  without  involv 
ing  two  hypostases — subsistences — and  therefore  being  "Nes 
torian."  An  explanation  without  these  "Nestorian"  conse 
quences  was  what  Leontius  now  gave.  The  natures  might  be 
"intra-hypostatic" — ewTrdoraTo? — that  is,  there  might  be  such 
a  hypostatic  union  that  while  the  peculiarities  of  one  nature 
remained,  it  might  find  its  hypostasis  in  the  other.  In  Christ 
this  one  hypostasis,  which  is  that  of  both  natures,  is  that  of 
the  Logos.  Thus  Leontius  would  interpret  the  creed  of  Chal- 


156    JUSTINIAN  AS  A  THEOLOGICAL  POLITICIAN 

cedon  in  terms  wholly  consonant  with  the  aim,  if  not  with  the 
exact  language,  of  Cyril.  The  human  in  Christ  is  real,  but  is 
so  subordinated  that  the  ultimate  reality  is  the  divine. 

Such  an  interpretation  seemed,  at  the  time,  a  quite  possible 
basis  of  reunion  with  the  more  moderate  Monophysites,  who 
constituted  their  majority.  The  large  section  led  by  Severus, 
Monophysite  patriarch  of  Antioch  (512-518),  who,  till  his  death 
in  538,  found  a  refuge  in  Egypt,  held  essentially  the  same  posi 
tion  as  Leontius.  Their  chief  difference  was  that  they  regarded 
the  Chalcedonian  Council  and  its  creed  with  greater  suspicion. 
With  the  more  radical  Monophysites,  led  by  Julian  of  Halicar- 
nassus  (d.  after  518),  the  prospect  of  union  was  less  auspicious. 
They  went  so  far  as  to  hold  that  Christ's  body  was  incorrupti 
ble  from  the  beginning  of  the  incarnation,  and  incapable  of 
suffering  save  so  far  as  Christ  Himself  permitted  it.  Its  enemies 
charged  the  theory  of  Julian  with  Docetic  significance. 

To  meet  this  situation  by  establishing  an  anti-Antiochian, 
Cyrillic  interpretation  of  the  creed  of  Chalcedon,  and  winning, 
if  possible,  the  moderate  Monophysites,  was  the  aim  of  Jus 
tinian.  He  came  to  favor  the  so-called  "  Theopaschite "  (i.  e., 
"suffering  God")  formula  of  the  Scythian  monks,  "one  of  the 
Trinity  suffered  in  the  flesh,"  after  a  controversy  lasting  from 
519  to  533.  Because  of  monastic  quarrels  in  Palestine,  and 
also  because  the  Emperor's  theological  sympathies,  like  those 
of  his  age,  were  exceedingly  intolerant,  Justinian  condemned 
the  memory  and  teachings  of  Origen  in  543. 1 

Justinian's  great  effort  to  further  his  theological  policy  was 
the  occasion  of  the  discussion  known  as  that  of  the  "Three 
Chapters."  In  544  Justinian,  defining  the  issue  by  his  own 
imperial  authority,  condemned  the  person  and  writings  of  Theo 
dore  of  Mopsuestia,  now  more  than  a  century  dead,  but  once 
the  revered  leader  of  the  school  of  Antioch  (ante,  p.  145),  the 
writings  of  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  in  criticism  of  Cyril  (ante,  p. 
148),  and  a  letter  of  Ibas  of  Edessa  to  Maris  the  Persian  (ante, 
p.  149).  Theodoret  and  Ibas  had  been  approved  by  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.  The  action  of  the  Emperor  nominally 
left  the  creed  of  Chalcedon  untouched,  but  made  it  impossible 
of  interpretation  in  any  but  a  Cyrillic  sense,  condemned  the 
school  of  Antioch,  and  greatly  disparaged  the  authority  of  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.  The  edict  aroused  not  a  little  opposi- 
i  Ayer,  pp.  542,  543. 


JUSTINIAN  AS  A  THEOLOGICAL  POLITICIAN    157 

tion.  Pope  Vigilius  (537-555)  disliked  it,  but  the  imperial 
reconquest  of  Italy  had  placed  the  Popes  largely  in  the  power 
of  the  Emperor.  Between  his  knowledge  of  the  feeling  of  the 
West  and  his  fear  of  Justinian,  Vigilius's  attitude  was  vacil 
lating  and  utterly  unheroic.1  To  carry  out  his  will,  Justinian 
now  convened  the  Fifth  General  Council,  which  met  in  Constan 
tinople  in  553.  By  it  the  "Three  Chapters,"  i.  e.,  Theodore 
and  the  writings  just  described,  were  condemned,  the  "Theo- 
paschite"  formula  approved,  and  Origen  once  more  reckoned 
a  heretic.2  Pope  Vigilius,  though  in  Constantinople,  refused 
to  share  in  these  proceedings,  but  such  was  the  imperial  pres 
sure  that  within  less  than  a  year  he  acceded  to  the  decision  of 
the  council.  The  Cyrillic  interpretation  of  the  creed  of  Chal- 
cedon  was  now  the  only  "orthodox"  understanding.  The 
action  of  the  council  was  resisted  for  a  few  years  in  North 
Africa;  and  the  yielding  attitude  of  the  Pope  led  to  a  schis 
matic  separation  of  northern  Italy  from  Rome  which  lasted 
till  the  time  of  Gregory  the  Great,  and  in  the  neighboring 
Illyricum  and  Istria  even  longer.  One  main  purpose  of  the 
condemnation  of  the  "Three  Chapters" — the  reconciliation  of 
the  Monophysites — failed.  In  Egypt  and  Syria  Monophysit- 
ism  remained  the  dominant  force,  the  real  reason  being  that 
these  provinces  were  developing  a  native  national  conscious 
ness  antagonistic  to  the  empire,  for  which  theological  differences 
were  the  excuse  more  than  the  cause. 

Under  Justinian's  successors,  Justin  II  (565-578),  and  Ti 
berius  II  (578-582),  alternate  severe  persecution  of  the  Mo 
nophysites  and  vain  attempts  to  win  them  occurred.  These 
efforts  were  now  of  less  significance  as  the  Monophysite  groups 
were  now  practically  separated  national  churches.  The  native 
Monophysite  body  of  Egypt  can  hardly  be  given  fixed  date  for 
its  origin.  From  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  the  land  was  in 
creasingly  in  religious  rebellion.  That  church,  the  Coptic,  is 
still  the  main  Christian  body  of  Egypt,  numbering  more  than 
six  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  adherents,  strongly  Monophy 
site  to  this  day  in  doctrine,  under  the  rule  of  a  patriarch  who 
still  takes  his  title  from  Alexandria,  though  his  seat  has  long 
been  in  Cairo.  Its  services  are  still  chiefly  in  the  ancient 
Coptic,  though  Arabic  has  to  some  extent  replaced  it.  The 
most  conspicuous  daughter  of  the  Coptic  Church  is  the  Abys- 

1  See  Ayer,  pp.  544-551.  2  Ayer,  pp.  551,  552. 


158    EGYPT,  ABYSSINIA,  SYRIA,  AND  ARMENIA 

sinian.  When  Christianity  was  introduced  into  "Ethiopia" 
is  uncertain.  There  is  some  reason  to  think  that  its  first  mis 
sionary  was  Frumentius,  ordained  a  bishop  by  Athanasius, 
about  330.  The  effective  spread  of  Christianity  there  seems 
to  have  been  by  Egyptian  monks,  about  480.  The  Abyssinian 
Church  stands  to  the  present  day  in  dependent  relations  to 
that  of  Egypt,  its  head,  the  Abuna,  being  appointed  by  the 
Coptic  patriarch  of  Alexandria.  It  is  Monophysite,  and  differs 
little  from  that  of  Egypt,  save  in  the  backwardness  of  its  cul 
ture,  and  the  great  extent  to  which  fasting  is  carried.  It  is 
probably  the  lowest  in  civilization  of  any  existing  church. 

While  Egypt  presented  the  spectacle  of  a  united  Monophy 
site  population,  Syria  was  deeply  divided.  Part  of  its  inhabi 
tants  inclined  to  Nestorianism  (ante,  p.  149).  Some  were 
orthodox,  and  many  Monophysite.  The  great  organizer  of 
Syrian  Monophysitism,  after  its  persecution  in  the  early  part 
of  the  reign  of  Justinian,  was  Jacob,  nicknamed  Baradseus 
(?-578).  Born  near  Edessa,  he  became  a  monk  and  enjoyed 
the  support  of  Justinian's  Monophysite-disposed  Empress, 
Theodora.  In  541  or  543  he  was  ordained  bishop  of  Edessa, 
and  for  the  rest  of  his  life  served  as  a  Monophysite  missionary, 
ordaining,  it  is  said,  eighty  thousand  clergy.  To  him  Syrian 
Monophysitism  owed  its  great  growth,  and  from  him  the  Syrian 
Monophysite  Church,  which  exists  to  the  present  day,  derives 
the  name  given  by  its  opponents,  Jacobite.  Its  head  calls 
himself  patriarch  of  Antioch,  though  his  seat  has  for  centuries 
been  in  the  Tigris  Valley,  where  most  of  his  flock  are  to  be  found. 
They  number  abou-t  eighty  thousand. 

Armenia  during  the  first  four  centuries  of  the  Roman  Em 
pire  was  a  vassal  kingdom,  never  thoroughly  Romanized, 
maintaining  its  own  language  and  peculiarities  under  its  own 
sovereigns.  Christian  beginnings  are  obscure;  but  the  great 
propagator  of  Christianity  in  the  land  was  Gregory,  called  the 
Illuminator,  who  labored  in  the  closing  years  of  the  third  cen 
tury.  By  him  King  Tiridates  (c.  238-314)  was  converted  and 
baptized — Armenia  thus  becoming  the  first  country  to  have  a 
Christian  ruler,  since  this  event  antedated  the  Christian  pro 
fession  of  Constantine.  Armenian  Christianity  grew  vigor 
ously.  Never  very  closely  bound  to  the  Roman  world,  Ar 
menia  was  in  part  conquered  by  Persia  in  387.  In  the  struggles 
of  the  next  century  hatred  of  Persia  seems  to  have  turned 


THE  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES      159 

Armenia  in  the  Monophysite  direction,  since  Persia  favored 
Nestorianism  (ante,  p.  149).  By  an  Armenian  council,  held  in 
Etchmiadzin  (Valarshabad),  in  491,  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
and  the  Tome  of  Leo  were  condemned,  and  the  Armenian  or 
Gregorian  Church — so  named  from  its  founder — has  been  ever 
since  Monopliysite.  Armenians  at  present  are  wide-spread 
throughout  the  Turkish  empire  and  the  adjacent  portions  of 
Russia/  Armenians  are  believed  to  number  not  less  than  two 
millions  nine  hundred  thousand,  of  whom  the  greater  part  are 
Gregorians.  The  Gregorian  Church  is  now  far  the  most  im 
portant  and  vigorous  of  these  ancient  separated  churches  of 
the  East. 

The  effect  of  the  Christological  controversies  was  disas 
trous  to  church  and  state.  By  the  close  of  the  sixth  century 
the  Roman  state  church  of  the  East  had  been  rent,  and  sepa 
rated  churches,  Nestorian  and  Monophysite  had  been  torn 
from  it.  Egypt  and  Syria  were  profoundly  disaffected  toward 
the  government  and  religion  of  Constantinople — a  fact  that 

j  largely  accounts  for  the  rapid  conquest  of  those  lands  by 

4  Mohammedanism  in  the  seventh  century. 

SECTION  XI.      CATASTROPHES  AND  FURTHER  CONTROVERSIES  IN 

THE   EAST 

Justinian's  brilliant  restoration  of  the  Roman  power  was 
but  of  brief  duration.  From  568,  the  Lombards  were  press 
ing  into  Italy.  Without  conquering  it  wholly,  they  occupied 
the  north  and  a  large  portion  of  the  centre.  The  last  Roman 
garrisons  were  driven  out  of  Spain  by  the  Visigoths  in  624. 
The  Persians  gained  temporary  control  of  Syria,  Palestine,  and 
Egypt  between  613  and  629,  and  overran  Asia  Minor  to  the 
Bosphorus.  On  the  European  side  the  Avars,  and  the  Slavic 
Croats  and  Serbs,  conquered  the  Danube  lands  and  most  of 
the  Balkan  provinces,  largely  annihilating  Christianity  there, 
penetrating  in  623  and  626  to  the  defenses  of  Constantinople 
itself.  That  the  empire  did  not  then  perish  was  due  to  the 
military  genius  of  the  Emperor  Heraclius  (610-642),  by  whom 
the  Persians  were  brilliantly  defeated,  and  the  lost  eastern 
provinces  restored.  Before  his  death,  however,  a  new  power, 
that  of  Mohammedanism,  had  arisen.  Its  prophet  died  in 
Medina  in  632,  but  the  conquest  which  he  had  planned  was 


160         THE  MONOTHELITE  CONTROVERSY 

carried  out  by  the  Caliphs  Omar  and  Othman.  Damascus 
fell  in  635,  Jerusalem  and  Antioch  in  638,  Alexandria  in  641. 
In  651,  the  Persian  kingdom  was  brought  to  an  end.  By  711, 
the  Mohammedan  flood  crossed  the  Strait  of  Gibraltar  into 
Spain,  bringing  the  Visigothic  monarchy  to  a  close,  and  swept 
forward  into  France,  where  its  progress  was  permanently 
checked  by  the  Franks,  under  Charles  Martel,  in  the  great 
V  battle  of  732,  between  Tours  and  Poitiers.  In  the  East,  Con 
stantinople  successfully  resisted  it,  in  672-678,  and  again  in 
717-718.  Syria,  Egypt,  and  North  Africa  were  permanently 
taken  by  the  Mohammedans. 

Under  such  circumstances,  before  the  final  catastrophe, 
efforts  were  naturally  made  to  secure  unity  in  the  threatened 
portions  of  the  empire.  After  negotiations  lasting  several  years, 
in  which  the  patriarch  Sergius  of  Constantinople  was  the 
leader,  a  union  policy  was  inaugurated  by  the  Emperor  Hera- 
clius,  on  the  basis  of  a  declaration  that  in  all  that  He  did  Christ 
acted  by  "one  divine-human  energy."  Cyrus,  the  "orthodox" 
patriarch  of  Alexandria,  set  up  a  formula  of  union,  of  which  this 
was  the  substance,  in  Egypt,  in  633,  with  much  apparent  suc 
cess  in  conciliating  Monophysite  opinion.1  Opposition  arose, 
led  by  a  Palestinian  monk,  Sophronius,  soon  to  be  patriarch  of 
Jerusalem.  Sergius  was  alarmed  and  now  tried  to  stop  any 
discussion  of  the  question.  He  now  wrote,  in  that  sense,  to 
Pope  Honorius  (625-638),  who  advised  against  the  expression 
"energy"  as  unscriptural,  and  said,  rather  incidentally,  that 
Christ  had  one  will.  Heraclius  now,  in  638,  issued  his  Ekthesis, 
composed  by  Sergius,  in  which  he  forbade  discussion  of  the 
question  of  one  or  two  energies  and  affirmed  that  Christ  had 
one  will. 

It  was  easier  to  start  a  theological  controversy  than  to  end 
it.  Pope  John  IV  (640-642)  condemned  the  doctrine  of  one 
will  in  Christ — or  Monothelite  heresy  as  it  was  called — in 
641.  Heraclius  died  that  year,  and  was  succeeded  by  Con- 
stans  II  (642-668),  who  issued,  in  648,  a  Typos,  in  which  he 
forbade  discussion  of  the  question  of  Christ's  will  or  wills.2 
The  holder  of  the  papacy  was  the  ambitious  Martin  I  (649- 
655),  who  saw  in  the  situation  an  opportunity  not  only  to 
further  an  interpretation  of  the  theological  problem  consonant 
with  the  views  of  the  West,  which  had  always  held  that  Christ's 

1  Ayer,  pp.  661,  662.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  662-664. 


THE  SIXTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL  161 

natures  were  each  perfect  and  entire,  but  also  to  assert  papal 
authority  in  the  Orient.  He  therefore  assembled  a  great  synod 
in  Rome  in  649,  which  proclaimed  the  existence  of  two  wills 
in  Christ — human  and  divine — and  not  only  condemned  Ser- 
gius  and  other  patriarchs  of  Constantinople,  but  the  Ekthesis 
and  the  Typos.}  This  was  flat  defiance  of  the  Emperor.  Con- 
stans  had  Pope  Martin  arrested  and  brought  a  prisoner  to 
Constantinople  in  653,  where  he  was  treated  with  great  bru 
tality.  Martin  had  the  courage  of  his  convictions.  He  was 
exiled  to  the  Crimea,  where  he  died.  Strained  relations  be 
tween  Rome  and  Constantinople  followed.  Constans  II  was 
succeeded  by  Constantine  IV  (668-685).  By  that  time,  the 
Monophysite  provinces,  the  retention  of  which  had  been  the 
source  of  the  discussion,  had  been  taken  by  the  Mohammedans. 
It  was  more  important  to  placate  Italy  than  to  favor  them. 
The  Emperor  entered  into  negotiations  with  Pope  Agatho 
(678-681),  who  issued  a  long  letter  of  definition  as  Leo  I  had 
once  set  forth  his  Tome.  Under  imperial  auspices  a  council, 
the  Sixth  General  Council,  was  held  in  Constantinople  in  680 
and  681.  By  it  Christ  was  declared  to  have  "two  natural  wills 
or  willings  .  .  .  not  contrary  one  to  the  other  .  .  .  but  His 
human  will  follows,  not  as  resisting  or  reluctant,  but  rather  as 
subject  to  His  divine  and  omnipotent  will."  It  also  con 
demned  Sergius  and  other  of  his  successors  in  the  patriarchate 
of  Constantinople,  Cyrus  of  Alexandria  and  Pope  Honorius.2 
For  the  third  time  Rome  had  triumphed  over  the  divided 
East  in  theological  definition.  Nicsea,  Chalcedon,  and  Con 
stantinople  had  all  been  Roman  victories.  It  must  be  said, 
also,  that  a  human  will  was  necessary  for  that  complete  and 
perfect  humanity  of  Christ  as  well  as  perfect  divinity,  for  which 
the  West  had  always  stood.  The  doctrine,  thus  defined,  was 
the  logical  completion  of  that  of  Chalcedon.  With  its  defini 
tion,  the  Christological  controversies  were  ended  in  so  far  as 
doctrinal  determination  was  concerned. 

While  the  Sixth  General  Council  was  thus  a  Western  success, 
it  had  a  sort  of  appendix  which  was,  in  a  sense,  a  Western 
defeat.  Like  the  council  of  the  "Three  Chapters"  (553),  it 
had  formulated  no  disciplinary  canons.  A  council  to  do  this 
work  was  summoned  by  Justinian  II  (685-695,  704-711),  to 
meet  in  Constantinople  in  692,  and  is  called  from  the  domed 

1  Extracts,  Ayer,  pp.  664,  665.  2  Ayer,  pp.  665-672. 


162  THE  IMAGE  CONTROVERSY 

room  in  which  it  assembled — which  was  that  in  which  the 
council  of  680  and  681  had  met — the  Second  Trullan  Council, 
or  Concilium  Quini-sextum,  as  completing  the  Fifth  and  Sixth 
General  Councils.  It  was  entirely  Eastern  in  its  composition, 
and  is  looked  upon  by  the  Oriental  Church  as  the  completion 
of  the  council  of  680  and  681 ,  though  its  validity  is  not  accepted 
by  that  of  Rome.  Many  ancient  canons  were  renewed;  but 
several  of  the  new  enactments  directly  contradicted  Western 
practice.  It  enacted,  in  agreement  with  Chalcedon,  that 
"the  see  of  Constantinople  shall  enjoy  equal  privilege  with  the 
see  of  Old  Rome."  It  permitted  marriage  to  deacons  and  pres 
byters,  and  condemned  the  Roman  prohibition  of  such  mar 
riages.  The  Greek  Church  still  maintains  this  permission.  It 
forbade  the  Roman  custom  of  fasting  on  Saturdays  in  Lent. 
It  prohibited  the  favorite  Western  representation  of  Christ 
under  the  symbol  of  a  lamb,  ordering  instead  the  depiction  of 
a  human  figure.1  Though  not  very  important  in  themselves, 
these  enactments  are  significant  of  the  growing  estrangement  in 
feeling  and  practice  between  East  and  West. 

The  apparent  collapse  of  the  Eastern  empire  in  the  seventh 
century  was  followed  by  a  very  considerable  renewal  of  its 
strength  under  the  able  Leo  III,  the  Isaurian  (717-740),  to 
whose  military  and  administrative  talents  its  new  lease  of  life 
was  due.  A  forceful  sovereign,  he  would  rule  the  church  in 
the  spirit  of  Justinian.  He  desired  to  make  entrance  as  easy 
as  possible  for  Jews,  Moslems,  and  the  representatives  of  the 
stricter  Christian  sects,  such  as  the  remaining  Montanists. 
They  charged  the  church  with  idolatry,  by  reason  of  the  wide 
spread  veneration  of  pictures.  In  726,  Leo  forbade  their  further 
employment  in  worship.  The  result  was  religious  revolt. 
The  monks  and  common  people  resisted,  partly  from  veneration 
of  images,  partly  in  the  interest  of  the  freedom  of  the  church 
from  imperial  dictation.  Leo  enforced  his  decree  by  the  army. 
In  most  of  the  empire  he  had  his  will.  Italy  was  too  remote, 
and  there  Popes  and  people  resisted  him.  Under  Pope  Gregory 
III  (731-741),  a  Roman  synod  of  731  excommunicated  the 
opponents  of  pictures.  The  Emperor  answered  by  removing 
all  of  Sicily  and  such  portions  of  Italy  as  he  could  from  the 
Pope's  jurisdiction.  Leo's  able  and  tyrannous  son,  Constan- 
tine  V  (740-775),  pursued  the  same  policy  even  more  relent- 

1  Ayer,  pp.  673-679. 


JOHN  OF  DAMASCUS  163 

lessly.  A  synod  assembled  by  him  in  Constantinople  in  754 
condemned  pictures  and  approved  his  authority  over  the 
church.  In  this  struggle  the  papacy  sought  the  help  of  the 
Franks  and  tore  itself  permanently  from  dependence  on  the 
Eastern  Emperors.  A  change  of  imperial  policy  came,  however, 
with  the  accession  of  Constantino  VI  (780-797),  under  the 
dominance  of  his  mother,  Irene,  a  partisan  of  pictures.  By 
imperial  authority,  and  with  the  presence  of  papal  delegates,  the 
Seventh  and,  in  the  estimate  of  the  Greek  Church,  the  last, 
General  Council  now  assembled  in  Nicrea  in  787.  By  its  de 
cree  pictures,  the  cross,  and  the  Gospels  "  should  be  given  due 
salutation  and  honorable  reverence,  not  indeed  that  true  wor 
ship,  which  pertains  alone  to  the  divine  nature.  .  .  .  For  the 
honor  which  is  paid  to  the  image  passes  on  to  that  which  the 
image  represents,  and  he  who  shows  reverence  to  the  image 
shows  reverence  to  the  subject  represented  in  it."  The 
council  seems  to  have  been  unconscious  that  much  the  same 
thing  could  have  been  said  by  heathenism  for  its  images. 

Among  the  vigorous  supporters  of  image-reverence  was  John 
of  Damascus  (700?-753?),  the  most  honored  of  the  later  theo 
logians  of  the  Eastern  portion  of  the  ancient  church.  Born  in 
the  city  from  which  he  took  his  name,  the  son  of  a  Christian 
high-placed  in  the  civil  service  of  the  Mohammedan  Caliph, 
he  succeeded  to  his  father's  position,  only  to  abandon  it  and 
become  a  monk  of  the  cloister  of  St.  Sabas  near  Jerusalem, 
His  chief  work,  The  Fountain  of  Knowledge,  is  a  complete, 
systematic  presentation  of  the  theology  of  the  church  of  the 
East.  With  little  of  originality,  and  much  use  of  extracts  from 
earlier  writers,  he  presented  the  whole  in  clear  and  logical  form,  , 
so  that  he  became  the  great  theological  instructor  of  the  Greek  S 
Church,  and,  thanks  to  a  Latin  translation  of  the  twelfth  cen-  ^ 
tury,  influenced  the  scholasticism  of  the  West.  His  philosophi 
cal  basis  is  an  Aristotelianism  largely  influenced  by  Neo-Platon- 
ism.  In  the  Christological  discussion  he  followed  Leontius 
(ante,  p.  155),  in  an  interpretation  of  the  Chalcedonian  symbol 
consonant  with  the  views  of  Cyril.  To  him  the  death  of  Christ 
is  a  sacrifice  offered  to  God,  not  a  ransom  to  the  devil.  The 
Lord's  Supper  is  fully  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  not  by  tran- 
substantiation,  but  by  a  miraculous  transformation  wrought  by 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

1  Ayer,  pp.  694-697. 


164    CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  IMPERIAL  CHURCH 

John  of  Damascus  summed  up  the  theological  development  of 
the  Orient,  and  beyond  the  positions  which  he  represented  the 
East  made  practically  no  progress.  Its  contribution  to  the 
intellectual  explanation  of  Christianity  was  completed. 

SECTION     XII.      THE     CONSTITUTIONAL     DEVELOPMENT     OF    THE 

CHURCH 

The  acceptance  of  Christianity  as  the  religion  of  the  empire 
gave  to  the  Emperors  a  practical  authority  over  the  church. 
By  the  time  of  Justinian,  the  Emperor  declared,  on  his  own 
initiative,  what  was  sound  doctrine,  and  to  a  considerable 
extent  regulated  churchly  administration.1  The  Emperors 
largely  controlled  appointment  to  high  ecclesiastical  office, 
especially  in  the  East.  This  imperial  power  was  limited,  how 
ever,  by  the  necessity,  which  even  Emperors  as  powerful  as 
Justinian  felt,  of  securing  the  approval  of  the  church  through 
general  councils  for  statements  of  faith  and  canons  of  adminis 
tration.  The  imperial  support  of  these  edicts  and  decisions  of 
general  councils  made  heresy  a  crime,  and  must  seriously  have 
limited  freedom  of  Christian  thought.  It  was  a  very  narrow 
path  both  in  doctrinal  opinion  and  in  administration,  that  a 
bishop  of  Constantinople,  for  instance,  had  to  walk.  If  con 
ditions  were  more  favorable  for  the  papacy  (ante,  pp.  134-136), 
it  was  largely  a  consequence  of  the  general  ineffectiveness  of 
imperial  control  in  Italy,  though  cases  were  not  lacking  where 
the  Popes  felt  the  heavy  hands  of  the  Emperors. 

As  in  the  third  century,  the  bishops  continued  to  be  the  centres 
of  local  ecclesiastical  administration,  and  their  power  tended 
to  increase.  By  them  the  other  clergy  were  not  merely  ordained, 
but  the  pay  of  those  below  them  was  in  their  hands.  The  First 
Council  of  Nicsea  provided  that  other  clergy  should  not  remove 
from  a  diocese  without  the  bishop's  consent.2  In  each  of  the 
provinces  the  bishop  of  the  capital  city  was  the  metropolitan, 
who,  according  to  the  synod  of  Antioch  (341),  should  "have 
precedence  in  rank  .  .  .  that  the  other  bishops  do  nothing 
extraordinary  without  him."  3  The  ancient  custom  of  local 
synods,  for  the  consideration  of  provincial  questions  was  ex 
tended,  the  First  Council  of  Nicsea  requiring  them  to  be  held 

1 E.  g.,  Ayer,  pp.  542,  555.  2  Ayer,  p.  361. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  363. 


THE  CLERGY  165 

twice  a  year.1  This  metropolitan  arrangement  was  fully  in 
troduced  into  the  East  by  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century. 
In  the  West  it  was  about  half  a  century  later  in  development, 
and  was  limited  in  Italy  by  the  dominance  of  the  papacy. 
Nevertheless  it  won  its  way  in  northern  Italy,  Spain,  and  Gaul. 
Above  the  metropolitans  stood  the  bishops  of  the  great  capitals 
of  the  empire,  the  patriarchs,  whose  prominence  antedated  the 
rise  of  ;the  metropolitan  system.  These  were  the  bishops,  or 
patriarchs,  of  Rome,  Constantinople  (by  381),  Alexandria, 
Antioch,  and,  by  451,  Jerusalem. 

By  Constantine,  the  clergy  were  made  a  privileged  class 
and  exempted  from  the  public  burdens  of  taxation  (319).2  The 
government,  anxious  not  to  lose  its  revenues  through  the  en 
trance  into  clerical  office  of  the  well-to-do,  ordered  that  only 
those  "of  small  fortune"  should  be  ordained  (326). 3  The 
result  of  this  policy  was  that,  though  the  ordination  of  slaves 
was  everywhere  discouraged,  and  was  forbidden  in  the  East 
by  the  Emperor  Zeno  in  484,  the  clergy  were  prevailingly  re 
cruited  from  classes  of  little  property  or  education.  The  bril 
liant  careers  of  some  men  of  talent  and  means,  of  whom  Ambrose 
is  an  example,  show  the  possibilities  then  before  those  of  high 
ability  who  passed  these  barriers.  The  feeling,  which  had  long 
existed,  that  the  higher  clergy,  at  least,  should  not  engage  in 
any  worldly  or  gainful  occupation,  grew,  and  such  works  were 
expressly  forbidden  by  the  Emperor  Valentinian  III  in  452. 
Such  exclusive  devotion  to  the  clerical  calling  demanded  an 
enlarged  support.  The  church  now  received  not  merely  the 
gifts  of  the  faithful,  as  of  old ;  but  the  income  of  a  rapidly  in 
creasing  body  of  landed  estates  presented  or  bequeathed  to  it 
by  wealthy  Christians,  the  control  of  which  was  in  the  hands 
of  the  bishops.  An  arrangement  of  Pope  Simplicius  (468-483) 
provided  that  ecclesiastical  income  should  be  divided  into  quar 
ters,  one  each  for  the  bishop,  the  other  clergy,  the  up-keep  of 
the  services  and  edifices,  and  for  the  poor. 

The  feeling  was  natural  that  the  clergy  should  be  moral  ex 
amples  to  their  flocks.  Celibacy  had  long  been  prized  as  be 
longing  to  the  holier  Christian  life.  In  this  respect  the  West 
was  stricter  than  the  East.  Pope  Leo  I  (440-461)  held  that 
even  sub-deacons  should  refrain  from  marriage,4  though  it  was 

1  Aver,  p.  360.  2  Ibid.,  p.  283. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  280.  4  Letters,  145. 


166  CATECHUMENS,  CONFIRMATION 

to  be  centuries  before  this  rule  was  universally  enforced  in  the 
Western  Church.  In  the  East,  the  practice  which  still  con 
tinues  was  established  by  the  time  of  Justinian,  that  only 
celibates  could  be  bishops,  while  clergy  below  that  rank  could 
marry  before  ordination.  This  rule,  though  not  without 
advantages,  has  had  the  great  disadvantage  of  blocking  pro 
motion  in  the  Eastern  Church,  and  leading  to  the  choice  of 
bishops  prevailingly  from  the  ranks  of  the  monks. 

While  the  bishop's  power  was  thus  extensive,  the  growth  of 
the  church  into  the  rural  districts  about  the  cities,  and  of  many 
congregations  in  the  cities  themselves,  led  to  the  formation  of 
congregations  in  charge  of  presbyters,  and  thus  to  a  certain 
increase  in  the  importance  of  the  presbyterial  office.  These 
congregations  still  belonged,  in  most  regions,  to  the  undivided 
city  church,  ruled  by  the  bishop;  but  by  the  sixth  century  the 
parish  system  made  its  appearance  in  France.  There  the 
priest  (presbyter)  in  charge  received  two-thirds  of  the  local 
income,  paying  the  rest  to  the  bishop. 

The  incoming  of  masses  from  heathenism  into  the  church 
led,  at  first,  to  an  emphasis  on  the  catechumenate.  Reception 
to  it,  with  the  sign  of  the  cross  and  laying  on  of  hands,  was 
popularly  regarded  as  conferring  membership  in  the  church, 
and  was  as  far  as  the  great  multitude  of  less  earnest  Christians 
went  in  Christian  profession,  save  in  possible  danger  of  death. 
The  growth  of  generations  of  exclusively  Christian  ancestry, 
and,  in  the  West,  the  spread  of  Augustinian  doctrines  of  bap 
tismal  grace,  brought  this  half-way  attitude  to  an  end.  The 
catechumenate  lost  its  significance  when  the  whole  population 
had  become  supposedly  Christian. 

In  one  important  respect  East  and  West  fell  asunder  in  this 
period  regarding  rites  connected  with  baptism.  As  already 
described,  by  the  time  of  Tertullian  (ante,  p.  96),  baptism 
proper  was  followed  by  anointing  and  laying  on  of  hands  in 
token  of  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  Tertullian's  age 
both  baptism  and  laying  on  of  hands  were  acts  of  the  bishop, 
save  in  case  of  necessity,  when  baptism  could  be  admin 
istered  by  any  Christian  (ante,  p.  97).  With  the  growth  of 
the  church,  presbyters  came  to  baptize  regularly  in  East  and 
West.  With  regard  to  the  further  rite  the  two  regions  differed. 
The  East  saw  its  chief  significance  in  the  anointing,  and  al 
lowed  that  to  be  performed,  as  it  does  to-day,  by  the  presbyter 


PUBLIC  WORSHIP  167 

with  oil  consecrated  by  the  bishop.  The  West  viewed  the  lay 
ing  on  of  hands  as  the  all-important  matter,  and  held  that  that 
could  be  done  by  the  bishop  alone1  as  successor  to  the  Apostles. 
The  rites  therefore  became  separated  in  the  West.  "  Confirma 
tion"  took  place  often  a  considerable  time  after  baptism,  when 
the  presence  or  the  bishop  could  be  secured,  though  it  was  long 
before  the  age  of  the  candidate  was  fixed  in  the  Western 
Church: 

SECTION  XIII.      PUBLIC  WORSHIP  AND  SACRED  SEASONS 

Public  worship  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  stood  wholly 
under  the  influence  of  the  conception  of  secret  discipline,  the 
so-called  disciplina  arcani,  derived,  it  is  probable,  from  con 
ceptions  akin  to  or  borrowed  from  the  mystery  religions.  Its 
roots  run  back  apparently  into  the  third  century.  Under  these 
impulses  the  services  were  divided  into  two  parts.  The  first 
was  open  to  catechumens  and  the  general  public,  and  included 
Bible  reading,  singing,  the  sermon,  and  prayer.  To  the  second, 
the  true  Christian  mystery,  none  but  the  baptized  were  ad 
mitted.  It  had  its  crown  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  the  creed 
and  the  Lord's  Prayer  were  also  objects  of  reserve  from  those 
uninitiated  by  baptism.  With  the  disappearance  of  the  cate- 
chumenate  in  the  sixth  century,  under  the  impression  that  the 
population  was  all  now  Christian,  the  secret  discipline  came 
to  an  end. 

The  public  portion  of  Sunday  worship  began  with  Scripture 
reading,  interspersed  with  the  singing  of  psalms.  These  selec 
tions  presented  three  passages,  the  prophets,  i.  e.,  Old  Testa 
ment,  the  epistles,  the  Gospels,  and  were  so  read  as  to  cover 
the  Bible  in  the  course  of  successive  Sundays.  The  desirability 
of  reading  appropriate  selections  at  special  seasons,  and  of 
some  abbreviation  led,  by  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  to 
the  preparation  of  lectionaries.  In  the  Arian  struggle  the  use 
of  hymns  other  than  psalms  grew  common,  and  was  furthered 
in  the  West  with  great  success  by  Ambrose  of  Milan. 

The  latter  part  of  the  fourth  and  the  first  half  of  the  fifth 
centuries  was  above  all  others  an  age  of  great  preachers  in  the 
ancient  church.  Among  the  most  eminent  were  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus,  Chrysostom,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  in  the  East, 

1  Acts  814-17. 


168  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER 

and  Ambrose,  Augustine,  and  Leo  I  in  the  West.  This  preach 
ing  was  largely  expository,  though  with  plain  application  to 
the  problems  of  daily  life.  In  form  it  was  often  highly  rhetori 
cal,  and  the  hearers  manifested  their  approval  by  applause. 
Yet,  while  this  preaching  was  probably  never  excelled,  preach 
ing  was  by  no  means  general,  and  in  many  country  districts, 
or  even  considerable  cities,  few  sermons  were  to  be  heard. 
Prayer  was  offered  before  and  after  the  sermon  in  liturgical 
form.  The  benediction  was  given  by  the  bishop,  when  present, 
to  the  various  classes  for  whom  prayer  was  made,  and  the 
non-baptized  then  dismissed. 

The  private  portion  of  the  service — the  Lord's  Supper — 
followed.  Both  East  and  West  held  that,  by  divine  power, 
the  miracle  of  the  presence  of  Christ  was  wrought,  but  differed 
as  to  when  in  the  service  it  took  place.  In  the  judgment  of  the 
East  it  was  during  the  prayer  known  as  the  invocation,  epiklesis. 
This  was  undoubtedly  the  view  in  the  West  till  late  in  the 
sixth  century.  There,  however,  it  was  replaced,  probably 
under  Roman  influence,  by  the  conviction  that  the  Eucharistic 
miracle  occurred  when  the  words  of  institution  were  recited, 
culminating  in  "  This  is  My  body  .  .  .  this  is  the  new  covenant 
in  My  blood."  To  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria 
the  Supper  is  the  repetition  of  the  incarnation,  wherein  Christ 
takes  the  elements  into  union  with  Himself  as  once  He  did 
human  flesh.  The  Lord's  Supper  was  at  once  a  sacrifice  and  a 
communion.  It  was  possible  to  emphasize  one  aspect  or  the 
other.  The  East  put  that  of  communion  in  the  foreground. 
Consonant  with  its  theory  of  salvation,  the  Supper  was  viewed 
as  primarily  a  great,  life-giving  mystery,  wherein  the  partaker 
received  the  transforming  body  and  blood  of  his  Lord,  and 
thereby  became,  in  a  measure  at  least,  a  partaker  of  the  divine 
nature,  built  up  to  the  immortal  and  sinless  life.  This  view 
was  far  from  denied  in  the  West.  It  was  held  to  be  true. 
But  the  Western  conception  of  salvation  as  coming  into  right 
relations  with  God,  led  the  West  to  emphasize  the  aspect  of 
sacrifice,  as  inclining  God  to  be  gracious  to  those  in  whose 
behalf  it  was  offered.  The  Western  mind  did  not  lend  itself 
so  readily  as  the  Eastern  to  mysticism.  In  general,  the  Oriental 
administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  tended  to  become  a  mys 
tery-drama,  in  which  the  divine  and  eternal  manifested  itself 
in  life-giving  energy. 


CHRISTMAS  169 

Beside  the  Sunday  worship,  daily  services  of  a  briefer  char 
acter  were  now  very  common,  and  had  widely  developed  into 
morning  and  evening  worship. 

The  older  festivals  of  the  Christian  year,  Easter  and  Pente 
cost,  were,  as  earlier,  great  periods  of  religious  observance. 
Easter  was  preceded  by  a  forty  days'  fast,  though  the  method 
of  reckoning  this  lenten  period  varied.  The  Roman  system 
became  -ultimately  that  of  the  whole  West,  and  continues  to 
the  present.  The  whole  of  Holy  Week  was  now  a  time  of 
special  penitential  observance,  passing  over  to  the  Easter  re 
joicing.  By  the  fourth  century  the  observance  of  Ascension 
was  general.  The  chief  addition  to  the  festivals  of  the  church 
which  belongs  to  this  period  is  that  of  Christmas.  Apparently 
no  feast  of  Christ's  nativity  was  held  in  the  church  till  into 
the  fourth  century.  By  the  second  century,  January  6  had  been 
observed  by  the  Gnostic  disciples  of  Basilides  as  the  date  of 
Jesus'  baptism.  At  a  time  not  now  apparent,  but  probably 
about  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  this  was  regarded 
in  the  East  as  the  time  of  Christ's  birth  also,  by  reason  of  an 
interpretation  of  Luke  323,  which  made  Him  exactly  thirty 
years  old  at  His  baptism.  Other  factors  were  at  work,  how 
ever.  It  was  an  opinion  in  the  third  century  that  the  universe 
was  created  at  the  vernal  equinox,  reckoned  in  the  Julian 
calendar  as  March  25.  Similar  habits  of  thought  would  make 
the  beginning  of  the  new  creation,  the  inception  of  the  incarna 
tion,  fall  on  the  same  day,  and  therefore  Christ's  birth  on  the 
winter  solstice,  December  25.  That  that  date,  when  the  sun 
begins  to  turn,  was  the  birthday  of  the  Mithraic  Sol  Invictus, 
was  not  probably  the  reason  of  the  choice,  though  it  may  well 
have  commended  it  as  substituting  a  great  Christian  for  a 
popular  heathen  festival.  At  all  events,  the  celebration  of 
December  25  as  Christmas  appears  first  in  Rome,  apparently 
in  353  or  354,  though  it  may  date  from  336.  From  Rome  it 
spread  to  the  East,  being  introduced  into  Constantinople, 
probably  by  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  between  378  and  381.  A 
sermon  of  Chrysostom,  preached  in  Antioch  in  388,  declares 
that  the  celebration  was  then  not  ten  years  old  in  the  East, 
and  the  discourse  was  delivered,  it  would  appear,  on  the  first 
observance  of  December  25  in  the  Syrian  capital.  It  reached 
Alexandria  between  400  and  432. 1  From  its  inauguration, 

1  Kirsopp  Lake,  in  Hastings's  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics,  3601-8. 


170  MARTYRS  AND  RELICS 

Christmas  became  one  of  the  great  festivals  of  the  church, 
comparable  only  with  Easter  and  Pentecost. 

SECTION   XIV.      LOWER   CHRISTIANITY 

The  beginnings  of  veneration  of  martyrs  and  of  their  relics 
run  back  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Their  deaths 
were  regularly  commemorated  with  public  services  (ante,  p. 
93).  With  the  conversion  of  Constantine,  however,  and  the 
accession  to  the  church  of  masses  fresh  from  heathenism,  this 
reverence  largely  increased.  Constantine  himself  built  a  great 
church  in  honor  of  Peter  in  Rome.  His  mother,  Helena,  made 
a  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem,  where  the  true  cross  was  thought  to 
be  discovered.  Men  looked  back  on  the  time  of  persecution 
with  much  reason,  as  a  heroic  age,  and  upon  its  martyrs  as  the 
athletes  of  the  Christian  race.  Popular  opinion,  which  had 
long  sanctioned  the  remembrance  of  the  martyrs  in  prayer 
and  worship,  had  passed  over,  before  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century,  to  the  feeling  that  they  were  to  be  prayed  to  as  in 
tercessors  with  God,1  and  as  able  to  protect,  heal,  and  aid 
those  who  honored  them.  There  arose  thus  a  popular  Chris 
tianity  of  the  second  rank,  as  Harnack  has  well  called  it.  The 
martyrs,  for  the  masses,  took  the  place  of  the  old  gods  and 
heroes.  To  the  martyrs,  popular  feeling  added  distinguished 
ascetics,  church  leaders,  and  opponents  of  heresy.  There  was, 
as  yet,  no  regular  process  of  weighing  claims  to  sainthood. 
Inclusion  in  its  ranks  was  a  matter  of  common  opinion.  They 
were  guardians  of  cities,  patrons  of  trades,  curers  of  disease. 
They  are  omnipresent.  As  Jerome  expressed  it:  "They  fol 
low  the  Lamb,  whithersoever  He  goeth.  If  the  Lamb  is  present 
everywhere,  the  same  must  be  believed  respecting  those  who 
are  with  the  Lamb." 2  They  were  honored  with  burning 
tapers.3 

Chief  of  all  these  sacred  personages  was  the  Virgin  Mary. 
Pious  fancy  busied  itself  with  her  early.  To  Irenseus  she  was 
the  second  Eve  (ante,  p.  66).  Yet,  curiously  enough,  she  did 
not  stand  out  pre-eminent  till  well  into  the  fourth  century,  at 
least  in  the  teaching  of  the  intellectual  circles  in  the  church, 
though  popular  legend,  as  reflected  for  instance  in  the  apocry- 

1  Augustine,  Sermons,  1591.  2  Against  Vigilantius,  6. 

3  Ibid.,  7. 


THE  VIRGIN  MARY  171 

phal  Protevangelium  of  James,  had  made  much  of  her.  Ascetic 
feeling,  as  illustrated  in  Tertullian  and  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
asserted  her  perpetual  virginity.  With  the  rise  of  monasticism, 
the  Virgin  became  a  monastic  ideal.  The  full  elevation  of 
Mary  to  the  first  among  created  beings  came  with  the  Chris- 
tological  controversies,  and  the  complete  sanction  of  the  de 
scription  "Mother  of  God/'  in  the  condemnation  of  Nestorius 
and  the  decision  of  the  Councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon. 
Thenceforth  the  Virgin  was  foremost  among  all  saints  in  pop 
ular  and  official  reverence  alike.  To  her  went  out  much  of 
that  feeling  which  had  found  expression  in  the  worship  of  the 
mother  goddesses  of  Egypt,  Syria,  and  Asia  Minor,  though  in 
a  far  nobler  form.  Above  that  was  the  reverence  rightfully  her 
due  as  the  chosen  vehicle  of  the  incarnation.  All  that  martyr 
or  Apostle  could  do  for  the  faithful  as  intercessor  or  protector, 
she,  as  blessed  above  them,  could  dispense  in  yet  more  abundant 
measure.  In  proportion,  also,  as  the  Cyrillic  interpretation 
of  the  Chalcedonian  creed  and  Monophysitism  tended  to  em 
phasize  the  divine  in  Christ  at  the  expense  of  the  human,  and 
therefore,  however  unintentionally,  put  Him  afar  from  men, 
she  appeared  a  winsome  sympathizer  with  our  humanity. 
In  a  measure,  she  took  the  place  of  her  Son,  as  mediator  be 
tween  God  and  man. 

The  roots  of  angel-worship  are  to  be  found  in  apostolic  times,1 
yet  though  made  much  of  in  certain  Gnostic  systems,  and 
playing  a  great  role,  for  instance,  in  the  speculations  of  an 
Origen,  angels  were  not  conspicuously  objects  of  Christian 
reverence  till  late  in  the  fourth  century.  They  were  always 
far  less  definite  and  graspable  by  the  common  mind  than  the 
martyrs.  Reverence  for  angels  was  given  great  furtherance 
by  the  Neo-Platonic  Christian  mystic  work  composed  in  the 
last  quarter  of  the  fifth  century  in  the  name  of  Dionysius  the 
Areopagite,2  and  called  that  of  Pseudo-Dionysius.  Of  all 
angelic  beings,  the  Archangel  Michael  was  the  most  honored. 
A  church  in  commemoration  of  him  was  built  a  few  miles  from 
Constantinople  by  Constantine,  and  one  existed  in  Rome  early 
in  the  fifth  century.  When  the  celebration  of  his  festival  on 
Michaelmas,  September  29 — one  of  the  most  popular  of  medi 
aeval  feast-days  in  the  West — was  instituted,  is  uncertain. 
It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  reverence  for  relics 
1  Col.  218.  2  Acts  1734. 


172  ANGELS,  RELICS,  PICTURES 

began  early.  By  the  fourth  century  it  was  being  developed 
to  an  enormous  extent,  and  included  not  merely  the  mortal 
remains  of  martyrs  and  saints,  but  all  manner  of  articles  asso 
ciated,  it  was  believed,  with  Christ,  the  Apostles,  and  the 
heroes  of  the  church.  Their  wide-spread  use  is  illustrated  by 
the  statute  of  the  Seventh  General  Council  (787):  "If  any 
bishop  from  this  time  forward  is  found  consecrating  a  temple 
without  holy  relics,  he  shall  be  deposed  as  a  transgressor  of 
the  ecclesiastical  traditions."1  Closely  connected  with  this 
reverence  for  relics  was  the  valuation  placed  on  pilgrimages 
to  places  where  they  were  preserved,  and  above  all  to  the  Holy 
Land,  or  to  Rome. 

Reverence  for  pictures  was  slower  in  gaining  a  foothold. 
It  seemed  too  positively  connected  with  the  ancient  idolatry. 
By  the  time  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  however,  it  was  rapidly 
spreading  in  the  Eastern  Church,  where  it  became,  if  anything, 
more  prevalent  than  in  the  West.  The  struggles  ending  in  the 
full  authorization  of  pictures  by  the  Seventh  General  Council 
have  already  been  narrated  (ante,  p.  163).  Christian  feeling 
was  that  representation  on  a  flat  surface  only,  paintings,  and 
mosaics,  not  statues,  should  be  allowed,  at  least  in  the  interior 
of  churches,  and  this  remains  the  custom  of  the  Greek  Church 
to  the  present,  though  this  restriction  was  not  a  matter  of 
church  law. 

This  Christianity  of  the  second  rank  profoundly  affected  the 
life  of  the  people,  but  it  had  also  its  heartiest  supporters  in  the 
monks,  and  it  was  furthered  rather  than  resisted  by  the  great 
leaders  of  the  church,  certainly  after  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century.  It  undoubtedly  made  the  way  from  heathenism  to 
Christianity  easier  for  thousands,  but  it  largely  heathenized 
the  church  itself. 

SECTION   XV.      SOME   WESTERN   CHARACTERISTICS 

While  East  and  West  shared  in  the  theological  development 
already  outlined,  and  Western  influences  contributed  much  to 
the  official  decisions  in  the  Arian  and  Christological  contro 
versies,  there  was  a  very  appreciable  difference  in  the  weight 
of  theological  interest  in  the  two  portions  of  the  empire.  The 
West  produced  no  really  conspicuous  theological  leader  between 

1  Canon  7. 


WESTERN  CHARACTERISTICS  173 

Cyprian  (d.  258)  and  Ambrose  (340?-397).  Even  Hilary  of 
Poitiers  (300  ?-367)  was  not  sufficiently  eminent  as  an  original 
thinker  to  make  a  real  exception.  Both  Hilary  and  Ambrose 
were  devoted  students  of  the  Greek  Fathers— the  latter  espe 
cially  of  the  great  Cappadocians.  Though  Tertullian  was  per 
sonally  discredited  by  his  Montanism,  his  influence  lived  on  in 
the  greatly  valued  Cyprian.  While,  therefore,  Greek  elements 
entered  largely  into  Western  thinking,  it  developed  its  own  pe 
culiarities. 

The  western  part  of  the  empire  was  disposed,  like  Tertullian, 
to  view  Christianity  under  judicial  rather  than,  like  the  East, 
under  philosophical  aspects.  Its  thought  of  the  Gospel  was 
that  primarily  of  a  new  law.  While  the  West ^  did  not  deny 
the  Eastern  conception  that  salvation  is  a  making  divine  and 
immortal  of  our  sinful  mortality,  that  conception  was  too  ab 
stract  for  it  readily  to  grasp.  Its  own  thought  was  that  sal 
vation  is  getting  right  with  God.  Hence,  in  Tertullian,  Cyprian, 
and  Ambrose  there  is  a  deeper  sense  of  sin,  and  a  clearer  con 
ception  of  grace  than  in  the  East.  Religion  in  the  West  had  a 
closer  relation  to  the  acts  of  every-day  life  than  in  the  East. 
It  was  more  a  forgiveness  of  definitely  recognized  evil  acts,  J 
and  less  an  abstract  transformation  of  nature,  than  in  the  East 
—more  an  overcoming  of  sin,  and  less  a  rescue  from  earthiness 
and  death.  In  the  West,  through  the  teaching  of  Tertullian, 
Cyprian,  and  Ambrose,  sin  was  traced  to  an  inherited  vitiation 
of  human  nature  in  a  way  that  had  no  corresponding  parallel 
in  the  East.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  also,  that  this  Western 
estimate  of  sin  and  grace,  imperfectly  worked  out  though  it 
yet  was,  combined  with  the  firmer  ecclesiastical  organization 
jbf  the  West,  gave  the  Western  Church  a  stronger  control  of  the 
"  daily  life  of  the  people  than  was  achieved  by  that  of  the  East. 
All  these  Western  peculiarities  were  to  come  to  their  full  fruition 
"TfTthff  work  'of  Augustine. 

SECTION   XVI.      JERtfME 

Jerome  was  the  ablest  scholar  that  the  ancient  Western 
Church  could  boast.  Born  about  340  in  Strido  in  Dalmatia, 
he  studied  in  Rome,  where  he  was  baptized  by  Pope  Liberius 
in  360.  Aquileia  he  made  his  headquarters  for  a  while,  where 
he  became  the  friend  of  Rufinus  (?-410),  the  translator  of 


if. 


174  JEROME 

Origen,  like  Jerome  to  be  a  supporter  of  monasticism  and  a 
monk  in  Palestine,  but  with  whom  he  was  to  quarrel  over 
Origen's  orthodoxy.  Jerome  had  a  restless  desire  to  know  the 
scholarly  and  religious  world.  From  366  to  370  he  visited  the 
cities  of  Gaul.  The  next  three  years  saw  him  again  in  Aquileia. 
Then  came  a  journey  through  the  Orient  to  Antioch,  where  he 
was  overtaken  with  a  severe  illness  in  which  he  believed  Christ 
Himself  appeared  and  reproached  him  for  devotion  to  the 
classics.  He  now  turned  to  the  Scriptures,  studying  Hebrew, 
and  living  as  a  hermit  from  373  to  379,  not  far  from  Antioch. 
Ordained  a  presbyter  in  Antioch,  in  379,  he  studied  in  Constan 
tinople  under  Gregory  Nazianzus.  The  year  382  saw  him  in 
Rome,  where  he  won  the  hearty  support  of  Pope  Damasus 
(366-384),  and  preached  in  season  and  out  of  season  the  merits 
of  the  monastic  life.  Soon  he  had  a  large  following,  especially 
among  Roman  women  of  position ;  but  also  much  enmity,  even 
among  the  clergy,  for  monasticism  was  not  as  yet  popular  in 
the  West,  and  Jerome  himself  was  one  of  the  most  vindictive 
of  disputants.  The  death  of  Damasus  made  Jerome's  position 
so  uncomfortable  in  Rome  that  he  retired,  in  385,  to  Antioch, 
whither  a  number  of  his  Roman  converts  to  monastic  celibacy, 
led  by  Paula  and  her  daughter,  Eustochium,  soon  followed  him. 
With  them  he  journeyed  through  Palestine  and  to  the  chief 
monastic  establishments  of  Egypt,  returning  to  Bethlehem  in 
386,  where  Paula  built  nunneries  and  a  monastery  for  men. 
Here,  as  head  of  the  monastery,  Jerome  made  his  headquarters 
till  his  death,  in  420. 

Jerome's  best  use  of  his  unquestionable  learning  was  as  a 
translator  of  the  Scriptures.  The  older  Latin  versions  were 
crude,  and  had  fallen  into  much  corruption.  Pope  Damasus 
proposed  to  Jerome  a  revision.  That  he  completed  for  the 
New  Testament  about  388.  The  Old  Testament  he  then  trans 
lated  in  Bethlehem,  with  the  aid  of  Jewish  friends.  It  is  a 
proof  of  Jerome's  soundness  of  scholarship  that,  in  spite  even 
of  the  wishes  of  Augustine,  he  went  back  of  the  Septuagint  to 
the  Hebrew.  The  result  of  Jerome's  work  was  the  Vulgate, 
still  in  use  in  the  Roman  Church.  It  is  his  best  monument. 
Jerome  had,  also,  no  small  deserts  as  a  historian.  He  con 
tinued  the  Chronicle  of  Eusebius.  His  De  Viris  Inlustribus  is 
a  biographical  dictionary  of  Christian  writers  to  and  including 
himself.  He  was  an  abundant  commentator  on  the  Scriptures. 


AUGUSTINE'S  YOUTH  175 

He  urged  by  treatise  and  by  letter  the  advantages  of  celibacy 
and  of  the  monastic  life.  As  a  theologian  he  had  little  that 
was  original  to  offer.  AHe  was  an  impassioned  defender  of  tra 
dition  and  of  Westerr?  popular  usage.^  A  controversialist  who 
loved  disputation,  he  attacked  opponents  of  asceticism  like 
Jovinianus,  critics  of  relic-reverence  like  Vigilantius,  and  those 
who,  like  Helvidius,  held  that  Mary  had  other  children  than 
our  Lord.  He  condemned  Origen,  whom  he  had  once  admired. 
He  wrote  in  support  of  Augustine  against  the  Pelagians.  In 
these  controversial  writings  Jerome's  littleness  of  spirit  is  often 
painfully  manifest.  Though  deserving  to  be  reckoned,  as  he 
is  by  the  Roman  Church,  one  of  its  "Doctors,"  by  reason  of 
the  greatness  of  his  learning  and  the  use  which  he  made  of  it, 
the  title  "saint"  seems  more  a  tribute  to  the  scholar  than  to 
the  man. 


SECTION  XVII.      AUGUSTINE 

In  Augustine  the  ancient  church  reached  its  highest  religious 
attainment  since  apostolic  times.  Though  his  influence  in  the 
East  was  to  be  relatively  slight,  owing  to  the  nature  of  the 
questions  with  which  he  was  primarily  concerned,  all  Western 
Christianity  was  to  become  his  debtor.  Such  superiority  as 
Western  religious  life  came  to  possess  over  that  of  the  East  was 
primarily  his  bequest  to  it.  He  was  to  be  the  father  of  much 
that  was  most  characteristic  in  mediaeval  Roman  Catholicism. 
He  was  to  be  the  spiritual  ancestor,  no  less,  of  much  in  the 
Reformation.  His  theology,  though  buttressed  by  the  Scrip 
tures,  philosophy,  and  ecclesiastical  tradition,  was  so  largely 
f  rooted  in  his  own  experience  as  to  render  his  story  more  than 
usually  the  interpretation  of  the  man. 

Africa  gave  three  great  leaders  to  Latin  Christianity,  Ter- 
tullian,  Cyprian,  and  Augustine.  Augustine  was  born  in 
Tagaste,  in  Numidia,  now  Suk  Ahras  in  the  Department  of 
Constantine  in  Algeria,  on  November  13,  354.  His  father, 
Patricius,  was  a  heathen  of  good  position  but  of  small  property, 
an  easy-going,  worldly  character,  who  did  not  embrace  Chris 
tianity  till  near  the  end  of  life.  His  mother,  Monnica,  was  a 
Christian  woman  of  high  worth,  eagerly  ambitious  for  her  son, 
though  the  full  radiance  of  her  Christian  life  was  to  be  mani 
fested  in  her  later  years,  developed  through  Ambrose  and 


176  AUGUSTINE'S  YOUTH 

Augustine  himself.  In  Augustine  there  were  two  natures,  one 
passionate  and  sensuous,  the  other  eagerly  high-minded  and 
truth-seeking.  It  may  not  be  wrong  to  say  that  father  and 
mother  were  reflected  in  him.  From  Tagaste  he  was  sent  for 
the  sake  of  schooling  to  the  neighboring  Madaura,  and  thence 
to  Carthage,  where  he  pursued  the  study  of  rhetoric.  Here, 
when  about  seventeen,  he  took  a  concubine,  to  whom  he  was 
to  hold  for  at  least  fourteen  years,  and  to  them  a  son,  Adeo- 
datus,  whom  he  dearly  loved,  was  born  in  372.  If  the  sensuous 
Augustine  was  thus  early  aroused,  the  truth-seeking  Augustine 
was  speedily  awakened.  When  nineteen,  the  study  of  Cicero's 
now  almost  completely  lost  Hortensius  "changed  my  affec 
tions,  and  turned  my  prayers  to  Thyself,  O  Lord."  1  This  im 
perfect  conversion  caused  Augustine  to  desire  to  seek  truth  as 
that  alone  of  value.  He  began  to  study  the  Scriptures,  "but 
they  appeared  to  me  unworthy  to  be  compared  with  the  dig 
nity  of  Cicero."  2  He  now  turned  for  spiritual  and  intellectual 
comfort  to  the  syncretistic,  dualistic  system  known  as  Mani- 
chseism  (ante,  p.  107).  He  was  willing  to  pray  "Grant  me  chas 
tity  and  continence,  but  not  yet."  3 

For  nine  years  Augustine  remained  a  Manichsean,  living 
partly  in  Carthage  and  partly  in  Tagaste,  engaged  in  study  and 
teaching.  He  was  crowned  at  Carthage  for  a  theatrical  poem.4 
He  gathered  friends  about  him,  of  whom  Alypius  was  to  prove 
the  closest.  As  he  went  on  he  began  to  doubt  the  intellectual 
and  moral  adequacy  of  Manichseism.  His  associates  urged 
him  to  meet  the  highly  respected  Manichsean  leader,  Faustus. 
The  inadequacy  of  Faustus's  expositions  completed  his  mental 
disillusion.  Though  he  remained  outwardly  a  Manichsean, 
Augustine  was  now  inwardly  a  sceptic.  By  the  advice  of  Man- ; 
ichsean  friends  Augustine  removed  to  Rome  in  383,  and  by  their 
aid,  in  384,  he  obtained  from  the  prefect,  Symmachus,  a  gov 
ernment  appointment  as  teacher  of  rhetoric  in  Milan — then 
the  Western  capital  of  the  empire. 

Here  in  Milan,  Augustine  came  under  the  powerful  preach 
ing  of  Ambrose,  whom  he  heard  as  an  illustration  of  pulpit 
eloquence  rather  than  with  approval  of  the  message,  since  he 
was  now  under  the  sway  of  the  sceptical  philosophy  of  the 
New  Academy.  Here  Monnica  and  Alypius  joined  him.  At 

1  Confessions,  34.  2  Ibid.,  3s. 


AUGUSTINE'S  CONVERSION  177 

his  mother's  wish  he  now  became  betrothed  as  befitted  his 
station  in  life,  though  marriage  was  postponed  on  account  of 
the  youth  of  the  woman.  He  dismissed  regretfully  his  faith 
ful  concubine  and  entered  on  an  even  less  creditable  relation 
with  another.1  It  was  the  lowest  point  of  his  moral  life.  At 
this  juncture  Aiigustine  came  in  contact  with  Neo-Platonism, 
(ante,  p.  106),  through  the  translations  of  Victorinus.  It  was 
almost  a:  revelation  to  him.  Instead  of  the  materialism  and 
dualism  of  Manichseism,  he  now  saw  in  the  spiritual  world  the 
only  real  world,  and  in  God  the  source  not  only  of  all  good, 
but  of  all  reality.  Evil  was  no  positive  existence,  as  with  the 
Manichseans.  It  was  negative,  a  lack  of  good,  an  alienation 
of  the  will  from  God.  To  know  God  is  the  highest  of  blessings. 
This  new  philosophy,  which  always  colored  Augustine's  teach 
ings,  made  it  possible  for  him  to  accept  Christianity.  He  was 
impressed  by  the  authority  of  the  church,  as  a  hearer  of  Ambrose 
might  well  have  been.  As  he  said  later,  "I  should  not  believe 
the  Gospel  except  as  moved  by  the  authority  of  the  Catholic 
Church."  2 

A  crisis  in  Augustine's  experience  was  now  at  hand.  He 
had  never  felt  more  painfully  the  cleft  between  his  ideals  and 
his  conduct.  He  was  impressed  by  learning  of  the  Christian 
profession  made  in  old  age,  some  years  before,  by  the  Neo- 
Platonist  Victorinus,  whose  writings  had  so  recently  influenced 
him.3  A  travelled  African,  Pontitianus,  told  him  and  Alypius 
of  the  monastic  life  of  Egypt.  He  was  filled  with  shame  that 
ignorant  men  like  these  monks  could  put  away  temptations 
which  he,  a  man  of  learning,  felt  powerless  to  resist.4  Over 
come  with  self-condemnation,  he  rushed  into  the  garden  and 
there  heard  the  voice  of  a  child  from  a  neighboring  house,  say 
ing  :  "Take  up  and  read."  He  reached  for  a  copy  of  the  epistles 
that  he  had  been  reading,  and  his  eyes  fell  on  the  words :  "Not 
in  rioting  and  drunkenness,  not  in  chambering  and  wanton 
ness,  not  in  strife  and  envying ;  but  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  make  not  provision  for  the  flesh  to  fulfil  the  lusts 
thereof."  5  From  that  moment  Augustine  had  the  peace  of 
mind  and  the  sense  of  divine  power  to  overcome  his  sins  which 
he  had  thus  far  sought  in  vain.  It  may  be  that  it  was,  as  it 

1  Confessions,  615.      2  Against  the  Epistle  of  Manichceus,  5 ;  Ayer,  p.  455. 
3  Confessions,  82;  Ayer,  pp.  431-433.  *  Confessions,  88. 

6  Romans  1313-  " ;  Confessions,  812 ;  Ayer,  pp.  435-437. 


178  AUGUSTINE'S  LATER  LIFE 

has  been  called,  a  conversion  to  monasticism.  If  so,  that  was 
but  its  outward  form.  In  its  essence  it  was  a  fundamental 
Christian  transformation  of  nature. 

Augustine's  conversion  occurred  in  the  late  summer  of  386. 
He  resigned  his  professorship  partly  on  account  of  illness,  and 
now  retired  with  his  friends  to  the  estate  named  Cassisiacum, 
to  await  baptism.  He  was  far  from  being  the  master  in  the 
ology  as  yet.  His  most  characteristic  tenets  were  undeveloped. 
He  was  still  primarily  a  Christianized  Neo-Platonist ;  but  the 
type  of  his  piety  was  already  determined.  At  Cassisiacum  the 
friends  engaged  in  philosophical  discussion,  and  Augustine 
wrote  some  of  the  earliest  of  his  treatises.  At  the  Easter  season 
of  387  he  was  baptized,  with  Adeodatus  and  Alypius,  by  Am 
brose  in  Milan.  Augustine  now  left  Milan  for  his  birthplace. 
On  the  journey  Monnica  died  in  Ostia.  The  story  of  her 
death,  as  told  by  Augustine,  is  one  of  the  noblest  monuments 
of  ancient  Christian  literature.1  His  plans  thus  changed,  he 
lived  for  some  months  in  Rome,  but  by  the  autumn  of  388  was 
once  more  in  Tagaste.  Here  he  dwelt  with  a  group  of  friends, 
busied  in  studies  much  as  at  Cassisiacum.  During  this  period 
in  Tagaste  his  brilliant  son,  Adeodatus,  died.  Augustine 
thought  to  found  a  monastery,  and  to  further  this  project  went 
to  Hippo,  near  the  modern  Bona,  in  Algeria,  early  in  391. 
There  he  was  ordained  to  the  priesthood,  almost  forcibly. 
Four  years  later  he  was  ordained  colleague-bishop  of  Hippo. 
When  his  aged  associate,  Valerius,  died  is  unknown,  but  Augus 
tine  probably  soon  had  full  episcopal  charge.  In  Hippo  he 
founded  the  first  monastery  in  that  portion  of  Africa,  and 
made  it  also  a  training-school  for  the  clergy.  He  died  on 
August  28,  430,  during  the  siege  of  Hippo  by  the  Vandals. 

Almost  from  the  time  of  his  baptism  Augustine  wrote  against 
the  Manichseans.  With  his  entrance  on  the  ministry,  and  es 
pecially  as  bishop,  he  was  brought  into  conflict  with  the  Dona- 
tists  (ante,  p.  113),  then  wide-spread  in  northern  Africa.  This 
discussion  led  Augustine  to  a  full  consideration  of  the  church, 
its  nature  and  its  authority.  By  the  early  years  of  his  episco 
pate  he  had  reached  his  characteristic  opinions  on  sin  and 
grace.  They  were  not  the  product  of  the  great  Pelagian  con 
troversy  which  occupied  much  of  his  strength  from  412  onward, 
though  that  struggle  clarified  their  expression. 

1  Confessions,  910-12. 


AUGUSTINE'S  THOUGHT  OF  GOD  179 

The  secret  of  much  of  Augustine's  influence  lay  in  his  mys 
tical  piety.  Its  fullest  expression,  though  everywhere  to  be 
found  in  his  works,  is  perhaps  in  the  remarkable  Confessions, 
written  about  400,  in  which  he  gave  an  account  of  his  experi 
ences  to  his  conversion.  No  other  similar  spiritual  autobi 
ography  was  written  in  the  ancient  church,  and  few  at  any 
period  in  church  history.  It  has  always  stood  a  classic  of  re 
ligious  experience.  "Thou  hast  formed  us  for  Thyself,  and  our 
hearts  are  restless  till  they  find  their  rest  in  Thee"  (I1).  "It 
is  good,  then,  for  me  to  cleave  unto  God,  for  if  I  remain  not  in 
Him,  neither  shall  I  in  myself;  but  He,  remaining  in  Himself, 
reneweth  all  things.  And  Thou  art  the  Lord  my  God,  since 
Thou  standest  not  in  need  of  my  goodness"  (711).  "I  sought 
a  way  of  acquiring  strength  sufficient  to  enjoy  Thee;  but  I 
found  it  not  until  I  embraced  that  'Mediator  between  God  and 
man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus/  'who  is  over  all  God  blessed  for 
ever'  calling  me"  (718).  "My  whole  hope  is  only  in  Thy  ex 
ceeding  great  mercy.  Give  what  Thou  commandest,  and 
command  what  Thou  wilt"  (1029).  "I  will  love  Thee,  O  Lord, 
and  thank  Thee,  and  confess  unto  Thy  name,  because  Thou 
hast  put  away  from  me  these  so  wicked  and  nefarious  acts  of 
mine.  To  Thy  grace  I  attribute  it,  and  to  Thy  mercy,  that 
Thou  hast  melted  away  my  sin  as  it  were  ice"  (27).  Here  is  a 
deeper  note  of  personal  devotion  than  the  church  had  heard 
since  Paul,  and  the  conception  of  religion  as  a  vital  relationship 
to  the  living  God  was  one  the  influence  of  which  was  to  be 
permanent,  even  if  often  but  partially  comprehended. 

Augustine's  first  thought  of  God  was  thus  always  one  of  per 
sonal  connection  with  a  being  in  whom  man's  only  real  satisfac 
tion  or  good  is  to  be  found ;  but  when  he  thought  of  God  philo 
sophically,  it  was  in  terms  borrowed  from  Neo-Platonism.  God 
is  simple,  absolute  being,  as  distinguished  from  all  created  things 
which  are  manifold  and  variable.  He  is  the  basis  -andv  source 
of  all  that  really  exists.  This  conception  led  Augustine  to  em 
phasize  the  divine  unity,  even  when  treating  of  the  Trinity. 
His  doctrine  he  set  forth  in  his  great  work  On  the  Trinity.  It  be 
came  determinative  henceforth  of  Western  thinking.  "Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  one  God,  alone,  great,  omnipotent,  good, 
just,  merciful,  creator  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible."  1 
"Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  of  one  and  the  same  substance, 

1  Trinity,  7 :  612. 


b 


180       •;    AUGUSTINE'S  THOUGHT  OF  GOD 

God  the  creator,  the  omnipotent  Trinity,  work  indivisibly  "  (421). 
"Neither  three  Gods,  nor  three  goods,  but  one  God,  good,  om 
nipotent,  the  Trinity  itself."1  Tertullian,  Origen,  and  Atha- 
nasius  had  taught  the  subordination  of  the  Son  and  Spirit  to 
the  Father.  Augustine  so  emphasized  the  unity  as  to  teach 
the  full  equality  of  the  "persons."  "There  is  so  great  an 
equality  in  that  Trinity,  that  not  only  the  Father  is  not  greater 
than  the  Son,  as  regards  divinity,  but  neither  are  the  Father  and 
the  Son  together  greater  than  the  Holy  Spirit."  Augustine 
was  not  satisfied  with  the  distinction  "persons";  but  it  was 
consecrated  by  usage,  and  he  could  find  nothing  more  fitting: 
"When  it  is  asked,  what  are  the  three?  human  language  labors 
under  great  poverty  of  speech.  Yet  we  say,  three  'persons/ 
not  in  order  to  express  it,  but  in  order  not  to  be  silent."  3  It 
is  evident  that,  though  Augustine  held  firmly  to  the  ecclesias 
tical  tradition,  his  own  inclinations,  and  his  Neo-Platonic  phi 
losophy  inclined  toward  the  Modalistic  Monarchian  position. 
It  would,  however,  be  wholly  unjust  to  call  him  a  Modalist. 
He  attempted  to  illustrate  the  Trinity  by  many  comparisons, 
such  as  memory,  understanding,  will,4  or  the  even  more  famous 
lover,  loved,  and  love.5 

This  sense  of  unity  and  equality  made  Augustine  hold  that 
"God  the  Father  alone  is  He  from  whom  the  Word  is  born, 
and  from  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  principally  proceeds.  And 
therefore  I  have  added  the  word  principally,  because  we  find 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeds  from  the  Son  also."6  Eastern 
remains  of  subordinationism  and  feeling  that  the  Father  is 
the  sole  source  of  all,  taught  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeds  from 
the  Father  alone,  but  Augustine  had  prepared  the  way  for  that 
filioque,  which,  acknowledged  in  Spain,  at  the  Third  Council 
of  Toledo,  in  589,  as  a  part  of  the  so-called  Nicene  creed,  spread 
over  the  West,  and  remains  to  this  day  a  dividing  issue  between 
the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches. 

In  the  incarnation  Augustine  emphasized  the  human  as 
strongly  as  the  divine.  "  Christ  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  is  both 
God  and  man ;  God  before  all  worlds ;  man  in  our  world.  .  .  . 
Wherefore,  so  far  as  He  is  God,  He  and  the  Father  are  one ;  so 
far  as  He  is  man,  the  Father  is  greater  than  He."  7  He  is  the 

1  Trinity,  8,  Preface.  2  Ibid.  z  Ibid.,  59. 

4  Ibid.,  1012.  *  Ibid.,  92.  6  Ibid.,  1517. 

7  Enchiridion,  35. 


MAN'S  FALLEN  STATE  181 

only  mediator  between  God  and  man,  through  whom  alone 
there  is  forgiveness  of  sins.  "It  [Adam's  sin]  cannot  be  pardoned 
and  blotted  out  except  through  the  one  mediator  between  God 
and  man,  the  man,  Christ  Jesus."1  Christ's  death  is  the  basis 
of  that  remission.  As  to  the  exact  significance  of  that  death, 
Augustine  had  not  thought  to  consistent  clearness.  He  viewed 
it  sometimes  as  a  sacrifice  to  God,  sometimes  as  an  endurance 
of  our  punishment  in  our  stead,  and  sometimes  as  a  ransom  by 
which  men  are  freed  from  the  power  of  the  devil.  To  a  degree 
not  to  be  found  in  the  Greek  theologians,  Augustine  laid  stress 
on  the  significance  of  the  humble  life  of  Jesus.  That  humility 
was  in  vivid  contrast  to  the  pride  which  was  the  characteristic 
note  in  the  sin  of  Adam.  It  is  an  example  to  men.  "  The  true 
mediator,  whom  in  Thy  secret  mercy  Thou  hast  pointed  out 
to  the  humble,  and  didst  send,  that  by  His  example  also  they 
might  learn  the  same  humility." 

Man,  according  to  Augustine,  was  created  good  and  upright, 
possessed  of  free  will,  endowed  with  the  possibility  of  not  sin 
ning  and  of  immortality.3  There  was  no  discord  in  his  nature. 
He  was  happy  and  in4  communion  with  God.4  From  this 
state  Adam  fell  by  sin,  the  essence  of  which  was  pride.5  Its 
consequence  was  the  loss  of  good.6  God's  grace  was  forfeited, 
the  soul  died,  since  it  was  forsaken  of  God.7  The  body,  no 
longer  controlled  by  the  soul,  came  under  the  dominion  of 
"concupiscence,"  of  which  the  worst  and  most  characteristic 
manifestation  is  lust.  Adam  fell  into  a  state  of  total  and  hope 
less  ruin,  of  which  the  proper  ending  is  eternal  death.8  This  sin 
and  its  consequences  involved  all  the  human  race ;  "  for  we 
were  all  in  that  one  man  [Adam]  when  we  were  all  that  man 
who  fell  into  sin."  9  "The  Apostle,  however,  has  declared 
concerning  the  first  man  that  'in  him  all  have  sinned.'"10 
Not  only  were  all  men  sinners  in  Adam,  but  their  sinful  state 
is  made  worse  since  all  are  born  of  "concupiscence."  The 
result  is  that  the  whole  human  race,  even  to  the  youngest  in 
fant  is  a  "mass  of  perdition,"12  and  as  such  deserves  the  wrath 
of  God.  From  this  hopeless  state  of  original  sin  "no  one,  no, 

1  Enchiridion,  48.          2  Confessions,  1043.  8  Rebuke  and  Grace,  33. 

4  City  of  God,  1426.        5  Nature  and  Grace,  33.  6  Enchiridion,  11. 

7  City  of  God,  132.         8  Ibid.,  1415.  9  Ibid.,  13U ;  Ayer,  p.  439. 

10  Romans  512 ;  Forgiveness  of  Sins,  I11.  u  Marriage,  I27. 
12  Original  Sin,  34. 


18 


82  GRACE  AND  SALVATION 

not  one,  has  been  delivered,  or  is  being  delivered,  or  ever  will 
be  delivered,  except  by  the  grace  of  the  Redeemer."  1 

Salvation  comes  by  God's  grace,  which  is  wholly  undeserved, 
and  wholly  free.  "Wages  is  paid  as  a  recompense  for  mili 
tary  service.  It  is  not  a  gift ;  wherefore  he  says  l  the  wages  of 
sin  is  death, '  to  show  that  death  was  not  inflicted  undeservedly, 
but  as  the  due  recompense  of  sin.  But  a  gift,  unless  it  is  wholly 
unearned,  is  not  a  gift  at  all.  We  are  to  understand,  then,  that 
man's  good  deserts  are  themselves  the  gift  of  God,  so  that  when 
these  obtain  the  recompense  of  eternal  life,  it  is  simply  grace 
given  for  grace."  2  This  grace  comes  to  those  to  whom  God 
chooses  to  send  it.  He  therefore  predestinates  whom  He  will, 
"to  punishment  and  to  salvation."  3  The  number  of  each  class 
is  fixed.4  Augustine  had  held,  in  the  period  immediately  fol 
lowing  his  conversion,  that  it  is  in  man's  power  to  accept  or 
reject  grace,  but  even  before  the  Pelagian  controversy,  he  had 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  grace  is  irresistible.  The  effect  of 
this  saving  grace  is  twofold.  Faith  is  instilled,  and  sins,  both 
original  and  personal,  are  forgiven  at  baptism:  "The  faith  by 
which  we  are  Christians  is  the  gift  of  God."  5  As  such  it  is- 
immediate  justification.  But  grace  does  much  more.  As  with 
Tertullian  (ante,  p.  69),  it  is  the  infusion  of  love  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  frees  the  enslaved  will  to  choose  that  which  is  pleas 
ing  to  God,  "not  only  in  order  that  they  may  know,  by  the 
manifestation  of  that  grace,  what  should  be  done,  but  more 
over  in  order  that,  by  its  enabling,  they  may  do  with  love  what 
they  know."  6  It  is  a  gradual  transformation  of  nature,  a 
sanctification.  Through  us,  God  does  good  works,  which  He 
rewards  as  if  they  were  men's  own  and  to  which  He  ascribes 
merit.  No  man  can  be  sure  of  his  salvation  in  this  life.  He 
may  have  grace  now,  but,  unless  God  adds  the  gift  of  persever 
ance,  he  will  not  maintain  it  to  the  end.7  It  would  seem  that 
Augustine  may  have  been  led  to  this  conclusion  largely  by  the 
doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration.  It  is  evident  that  if  men 
receive  grace  at  baptism,  many  do  not  keep  it. 

This  doctrine  of  grace  was  coupled  in  Augustine  with  a  high 
valuation  of  the  visible  Catholic  Church,  as  that  only  in  which 
the  true  infusion  of  love  by  the  Holy  Spirit  may  be  found. 

1  Original  Sin,  34     2  Enchiridion,  107.  3  Ibid.,  100 ;  Ayer,  p.  442. 

4  Ayer,  p.  442.          5  Predestination,  3.  6  Rebuke  and  Grace,  3. 

7  Gift  of  Perseverance,  1. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  SACRAMENTS        183 

Replying  to  the  Donatists,  who  were  thoroughly  "orthodox" 
in  doctrine  and  organization,  and  yet  rejected  the  Catholic 
Church  as  impure,  because  allowing  the  sacraments  to  be  ad 
ministered  by  men  who  may  have  been  guilty  of  "deadly"  sins, 
Augustine  said  :  "Those  are  wanting  in  God's  love  who  do  not 
care  for  the  uAity  of  the  Church  ;  and  consequently  we  are 
right  in  understanding  that  the  Holy  Spirit  may  be  said  not 
to  be  received  except  in  the  Catholic  Church  .  .  .  whatever, 
therefore,  may  be  received  by  heretics  and  schismatics,  the 
charity  which  covereth  the  multitude  of  sins  is  the  especial 
gift  of  Catholic  unity."  1  Sacraments  are  the  work  of  God, 
not  of  men.  They  do  not,  therefore,  depend  on  the  character 
of  the  administrator.  Hence  baptism  or  regular  ordination 
need  not  be  repeated  on  entering  the  Catholic  Church.  But 
while  those  outside  have  thus  the  true  and  valid  form  of  the 
sacraments,  it  is  only  in  the  Catholic  Church  that  the  sacra 
ments  attain  their  appropriate  fruition,  for  there  only  can  that 
love  be  found  to  which  they  witness,  and  which  is  of  the  essence 
of  the  Christian  life.  Even  in  the  Catholic  Church,  not  all  are 
in  the  way  of  salvation.  That  is  a  mixed  company,  of  good  and 
bad.  "It  is  not  by  different  baptisms,  but  by  the  same,  that 
good  Catholics  are  saved,  and  bad  Catholics  or  heretics  perish." 

To  Augustine,  sacraments  include  all  the  holy  usages  and  rites 
of  the  church.  They  are  the  visible  signs  of  the  sacred  things 
which  they  signify.  Thus,  he  names  as  sacraments,  exorcism, 
ordination,  marriage,  and  even  the  salt  given  to  catechumens. 
Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  pre-eminently  sacraments. 
By  the  sacraments  the  church  is  knit  together.  "There  can  be 
no  religious  society,  whether  the  religion  be  true  or  false,  without 
some  sacrament  or  visible  symbol  to  serve  as  a  bond  of  un 
ion."3  Furthermore,  the  sacraments  are  necessary  for  salvation. 
"The  churches  of  Christ  maintain  it  to  be  an  inherent  principle, 
that  without  baptism  and  partaking  of  the  Supper  of  the  Lord 
it  is  impossible  for  any  man  to  attain  either  to  the  kingdom  of 
God  or  to  salvation  and  everlasting  life."^  Yet,  by  reason 
of  his  doctrines  of  grace  and  predestination,  the  sacraments 
for  Augustine  are  signs  of  spiritual  realities,  rather  than  those 
realities  themselves.  They  are  essential;  but  the  verities  to 
which  they  witness  are,  whenever  received,  the  work  of  divine 


i  Baptism,  316-  ».  '  /Wd.,  528-  39. 

8  Reply  to  Faustus*  19".  *  Forgiveness  of  Sins,  I34. 


184  THE  CITY  OF  GOD 

grace.  He  who  does  not  "  obstruct  faith  "  may  expect,  however, 
to  receive  the  benefit  of  the  sacrament.1  The  problem  was  not 
yet  WTOiight  out  as  it  was  to  be  in  the  Middle  Ages;  but  Augus 
tine  may  be  called  the  father  of  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments 
in  the  Western  Church. 

Augustine's  greatest  treatise  was  his  City  of  God,  begun  in 
412,  in  the  dark  days  after  the  capture  of  Rome  by  Alaric,  and 
finished  about  426.  It  was  his  philosophy  of  history,  and  .his 
defense  of  Christianity  against  the  heathen  charge  that  neg 
lect  of  the  6ld  gods  under  whom  Rome  had  grown  great  was 
the  cause  of  its  downfall.  He  showed  that  the  worship  of  the 
old  gods  had  neither  given  Rome  strength,  virtue,  nor  assurance 
of  a  happy  future  life.  The  loss  of  the  old  gods,  that  the  wor 
ship  of  the  one  true  God  should  come,  was  not  a  loss,  but  a 
great  gain.  Augustine  then  discusses  the  creation  and  the 
origin  and  consequences  of  evil.  That  brings  him  to  his  great 
theory  of  history.  Since  the  first  rebellion  against  God  "two 
cities  have  been  formed  by  two  loves :  the  earthly  by  love  of 
self,  even  to  the  contempt  of  God ;  the  heavenly  by  the  love 
of  God,  even  to  the  contempt  of  self/'2  These  had  their  rep 
resentatives  in  Cain  and  Abel.  Of  the  City  of  God,  all  have 
been  members  who  have  confessed  themselves  strangers  and 
pilgrims  on  the  earth.  The  Earthly  City  has  as  its  highest 
representatives  heathen  Babylon  and  Rome,  but  all  other  civil 
states  are  its  embodiment.  It  is  a  relative  good.  To  it  peace 
and  civil  order  are  due.  In  a  world  of  sin,  though  having  love 
of  self  as  its  principle,  it  represses  disorder  and  secures  to  each 
his  own.  But  it  must  pass  away  as  the  City  of  God  grows. 
Those  who  make  up  the  City  of  God  are  the  elect  whom  God 
has  chosen  to  salvation.  These  are  now  in  the  visible  church, 
though  not  all  in  that  church  are  elect.  "Therefore  the  church 
even  now  is  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  Accordingly,  even  now  His  saints  reign  with  Him, 
though  otherwise  than  as  they  shall  reign  hereafter;  and  yet, 
though  the  tares  grow  in  the  church  along  with  the  wheat,  they 

(do  not  reign  with  Him."  3  The  visible,  hierarchically  organ 
ized  church  it  is,  therefore,  that  is  the  City  of  God,  and  must 
more  and  more  rule  the  world.  In  this  teaching  of  Augustine 
lay  much  of  the  philosophic  basis  of  the  theory  of  the  mediaeval 
A  papacy. 

1  Letters,  9810 ;  Ayer,  p.  450.  2  City  of  God,  1428.  3  IUd.t  209. 


PELAGIUS'S  TEACHINGS  185 

It  is  evident  that,  clear  as  was  the  system  of  Augustine  in 
many  respects,  it  contained  profound  contradictions,  due  to 
the  intermingling  of  deep  religious  and  Neo-Platonic  thoughts 
and  popular  ecclesiastical  traditionalism.  Thus,  he  taught  a 
predestination  in  which  God  sends  grace  to  whom  He  will,  yet 
he  confined  salvation  to  the  visible  church  endowed  with  a 
sacramental  ecclesiasticism.  He  approached  the  distinction 
made  at*  the  Reformation  between  the  visible  and  the  invisi 
ble  church,  without  clearly  reaching  it.  His  heart  piety, 
also,  saw  the  Christian  life  as  one  of  personal  relation  to  God 
in  faith  and  love,  yet  he  taught  no  less  positively  a  legalistic 
and  monastic  asceticism.  The  Middle  Ages  did  not  advance 
in  these  respects  beyond  Augustine.  It  did  not  reconcile  his 
contradictions.  It  is  by  reason  of  them  that  most  various  later 
movements  could  draw  inspiration  from  him. 

SECTION  XVIII.      THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY 

Augustine's  most  famous  controversy,  and  that  in  which  his 
teachings  on  sin  and  grace  came  to  clearest  expression,  was  with 
Pelagius  and  that  teacher's  disciples.  Pelagius  was  a  British, 
or  perhaps  an  Irish  monk,  of  excellent  repute,  much  learning, 
and  great  moral  earnestness,  who  had  settled  in  Rome  about 
the  year  400,  when  probably  well  on  in  years.  He  seems  to 
have  been  shocked  at  the  low  tone  of  Roman  morals  and  to 
have  labored  earnestly  to  secure  more  strenuous  ethical  stand 
ards.  Instead  of  being  an  innovator,  his  teaching  in  many 
ways  represented  older  views  than  those  of  Augustine.  With 
the  East  generally,  and  in  agreement  with  many  in  the  West, 
he  held  to  the  freedom  of  the  human  will.  "If  I  ought,  I  can," 
well  expresses  his  position.  His  attitude  was  that  of  the  popu 
lar  Stoic  ethics.  "As  often  as  I  have  to  speak  of  the  principles 
of  virtue  and  a  holy  life,  I  am  accustomed  first  of  all  to  call 
attention  to  the  capacity  and  character  of  human  nature  and 
to  show  what  it  is  able  to  accomplish ;  then  from  this  to  arouse 
the  feelings  of  the  hearer,  that  he  may  strive  after  different 
kinds  of  virtue."  1  He,  therefore,  denied  any  original  sin  in 
herited  from  Adam,  and  affirmed  that  all  men  now  have  the 
power  not  to  sin.  Like  the  Stoics  generally,  he  recognized  that 
the  mass  of  men  are  bad.  Adam's  sin  set  them  an  ill  example, 
1  Ayer,  pp.  458,  459. 


186  PELAGIUS'S  TEACHINGS 

which  they  have  been  quick  to  follow.  Hence  they  almost  all 
need  to  be  set  right.  This  is  accomplished  by  justification  by 
faith  alone,  through  baptism,  by  reason  of  the  work  of  Christ. 
No  man  between  Paul  and  Luther  so  emphasized  justification 
by  faith  alone.  After  baptism,  man  has  full  power  and  duty 
to  keep  the  divine  law. 

Pelagius  won  a  vigorous  follower  in  the  much  younger 
Ccelestius,  a  lawyer,  and  possibly  a  Roman  though  he  has  been 
claimed  as  an  Irishman.  About  410,  the  two  went  to  North 
Africa  and  called  on  Augustine  in  Hippo,  without  finding  him. 
Pelagius  then  journeyed  to  the  East,  while  Coelestius  remained 
in  Carthage  and  sought  to  be  ordained  a  presbyter  by  Bishop 
Aurelius.  That  bishop  now  received  from  Paulinus,  a  deacon 
of  Milan,  a  letter  charging  Coelestius  with  six  errors.  (1) 
"Adam  was  made  mortal  and  would  have  died  whether  he  had 
sinned  or  had  not  sinned.  (2)  The  sin  of  Adam  injured  him 
self  alone,  and  not  the  human  race.  (3)  New-born  children  are 
in  that  state  in  which  Adam  was  before  his  fall.  (4)  Neither 
by  the  death  and  sin  of  Adam  does  the  whole  race  die,  nor  by 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  does  the  whole  race  rise.  (5)  The 
law  leads  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  well  as  the  Gospel. 
(6)  Even  before  the  coming  of  the  Lord  there  were  men  with 
out  sin."  l  This  was  an  unfriendly  statement,  but  Coelestius 
did  not  reject  it;  and  it  probably  represents  his  views,  which 
may  have  been  somewhat  more  radical  than  those  of  Pelagius. 
An  advisory  synod  in  Carthage,  in  411,  decided  against  his 
ordination.  Coelestius  then  journeyed  to  Ephesus,  where  he 
apparently  received  the  desired  consecration. 

Augustine  had  not  been  present  in  Carthage,  but  he  soon 
heard  of  the  matter,  and  at  once  began  his  long-continued 
literary  polemic  against  Pelagianism,  which  he  found  had 
many  supporters.  Augustine's  own  religious  experience  was 
deeply  wounded.  He  believed  that  he  had  been  saved  by 
irresistible  divine  grace  from  sins  which  he  could  never  have 
overcome  by  his  own  strength.  He  held  Pelagius  in  error  as 
denying  original  sin,  rejecting  salvation  by  infused  grace,  and 
affirming  human  power  to  live  without  sin.  Pelagius  did  not 
reject  grace,  but  to  him  grace  was  remission  of  sins  in  baptism 
and  general  divine  teaching.  To  Augustine  the  main  work  of 
grace  was  that  infusion  of  love  by  which  character  is  gradually 

1  Ayer,  p.  461. 


AUGUSTINE  AGAINST  PELAGIUS  187 

transformed.  Pelagius  found  support  in  the  East.  Early  in 
415,  Augustine  sent  Orosius  to  Jerome,  then  in  Palestine,  to 
interest  him  for  the  Augustinian  cause.  By  Jerome,  Pelagius 
was  accused  before  Bishop  John  of  Jerusalem,  but  was  approved 
by  the  bishop  £  and  before  the  year  was  out,  a  synod  held  in 
Diospolis  (Lydda^in  Palestine)  declared  Pelagius  orthodox. 

In  this  situation  Augustine  and  his  friends  caused  two  North 
African  synods  to  be  held  in  416,  one  for  its  local  district  in 
Carthage  and  the  other  for  Numidia  in  Mileve.  These  con 
demned  the  Pelagian  opinions  and  appealed  to  Pope  Innocent 
I  (402-417)  for  confirmation.  Innocent  was  undoubtedly 
pleased  at  this  recognition  of  papal  authority,  and  did  as  the 
African  synods  wished.  Innocent  died  shortly  after,  and  was 
succeeded  by  Zosimus  (417-418),  a  Greek,  and  therefore  nat 
urally  no  special  sympathizer  with  the  distinctive  Augustinian 
positions.  To  Zosimus,  Coelestius  now  appealed  in  person. 
The  new  Pope  declared  that  the  African  synods  had  been  too 
hasty,  and  seems  to  have  regarded  Coelestius  as  orthodox.  A 
new  synod  met  in  Carthage  early  in  418,  but  the  Africans  made 
a  more  effective  move.  In  April,  418,  at  their  instance  the 
Western  Emperor,  Honorius,  issued  a  rescript  condemning 
Pelagianism  and  ordering  the  exile  of  its  adherents.  In  May 
a  large  council  was  held  in  Carthage,  which  held  that  Adam 
became  mortal  by  .sin,  that  children  should  be  baptized  for  the 
remission  of  original  sin,  that  grace  was  necessary  for  right 
living,  and  that  sinlessness  is  impossible  in  this  life.  Moved 
by  these  actions,  Zosimus  now  issued  a  circular  letter  condemn 
ing  Pelagius  and  Coelestius. 

Pelagius  now  disappears.  He  probably  died  before  420.  A 
new  and  able  champion  of  his  opinions  now  appeared  in  the 
person  of  Bishop  Julian  of  Eclanum,  in  southern  Italy.  An 
edict  of  the  Emperor  Honorius,  in  419,  required  the  bishops  of 
the  West  to  subscribe  a  condemnation  of  Pelagius  and  Coelestius. 
Julian  and  eighteen  others  in  Italy  refused.  Several  of  them 
were  driven  into  exile  and  sought  refuge  in  the  East.  In  Julian, 
Augustine  found  an  able  opponent,  and  Pelagianism  its  chief 
systematizer ;  but  a  defender  who  was  much  more  of  a  ration 
alist  than  Pelagius.  About  429  Julian  and  Coelestius  found 
some  support  from  Nestorius  in  Constantinople,  though  Nes- 
torius  was  not  a  Pelagian.  This  favor  worked  to  Nestorius's 
disadvantage  in  his  own  troubles,  and  together  with  the  wish 


188  DISSENT  FROM  AUGUSTINE 

of  the  Pope  led  to  the  condemnation  of  Pelagianism  by  the 
so-called  Third  General  Council  in  Ephesus  in  431  (ante,  p. 
148).  Pelagianism,  thus  officially  rejected  in  the  West  and  the 
East,  nevertheless  lived  on  in  less  extreme  forms,  and  has  al 
ways  represented  a  tendency  in  the  thinking  of  the  church. 


SECTION  XIX.      SEMI-PELAGIANISM 

Augustine's  fame  as  the  great  teacher  of  the  Western  Church 
was  secure  even  before  his  death  in  430.  By  no  means  all  ac 
cepted,  however,  the  more  peculiar  portions  of  his  theology, 
even  where  Pelagianism  was  definitely  rejected.  Thus,  Jerome 
ascribed  to  the  human  will  a  share  in  conversion,  and  had  no 
thought  of  an  irresistible  divine  grace,  though  deeming  grace 
essential  to  salvation.  Northern  Africa,  which  had  led  the 
Western  Church  intellectually  since  the  time  of  Tertullian,  was 
now  devastated  by  the  Vandals.  Its  pre-eminence  in  leader 
ship  now  passed  to  southern  France,  and  it  was  there  that  the 
chief  controversy  over  Augustinian  principles  arose.  John 
Cassianus,  probably  from  Gaul,  but  who  had  journeyed  to  the 
East,  visited  Egypt,  and  had  served  as  deacon  under  Chrys- 
ostom,  founded  a  monastery  and  a  nunnery  in  Marseilles  about 
415,  and  died  there  about  435.  Not  far  from  429  he  wrote  his 
Collationes,  in  the  form  of  conversations  with  Egyptian  monks. 
In  his  opinion  "the  will  always  remains  free  in  man,  and  it 
can  either  neglect  or  delight  in  the  grace  of  God."  1 

In  434  Vincent,  a  monk  of  Lerins,  wrote  a  Commonitorium, 
in  which,  without  attacking  Augustine  by  name,  his  design 
was  to  do  so  really,  by  representing  Augustine's  teachings  on 
grace  and  predestination  as  novelties  without  support  in 
Catholic  tradition.  "Moreover,  in  the  Catholic  Church  itself 
all  possible  care  should  be  taken  that  we  hold  that  faith  which 
has  been  believed  everywhere,  always  and  by  all."  2  These 
men  and  their  associates  were  called  in  the  sixteenth  century 
"Semi-Pelagians,"  though  Semi-Augustinians  would  be  more 
correct,  since  they  agreed  in  most  points  with  Augustine, 
though  rejecting  his  essential  doctrines  of  predestination  and 
irresistible  grace.  These  were  earnest  men  who  sincerely  feared 
that  Augustine's  doctrines  would  cut  the  nerve  of  all  human 

1  12  ;  Ayer,  p.  469. 

2  Quod  ubique,  quod  semper,  quod  ab  omnibus,  24;  Ayer,  p.  471. 


THE  SYNOD  OF  ORANGE  189 

effort  after  righteousness  of  life,  especially  that  righteousness 
as  sought  in  monasticism.  Predestination  and  irresistible  grace 
seemed  to  deny  human  responsibility. 

This  dissent  from  Augustine  appeared  in  still  more  positive 
form  in  the  writings  of  Faustus,  abbot  of  Lerins,  and  afterward 
bishop  of  Riez\  In  his  treatise  on  Grace,  of  about  474,  he 
recognized  original  sin,  but  held  that  men  still  have  "the  pos 
sibility  of  striving  for  salvation."  Grace  is  the  divine  promise 
and  warning  which  inclines  the  weakened  but  still  free  will  to 
choose  the  right  rather  than,  as  with  Augustine,  an  inward 
transforming  power.  God  foresees  what  men  will  do  with  the 
invitations  of  the  Gospel.  He  does  not  predestinate  them. 
Though  Faustus  rejected  Pelagius,  he  really  stood  closer  to 
him  than  to  Augustine. 

A  more  Augustinian  direction  was  given  to  the  thought  of 
southern  France  by  the  able  and  devoted  Caes&ciiis  (469?-542), 
for  a  time  a  monk  of  Lerins,  and  from  502  onward  bishop  of 
Aries.  In  529  he  held  a  little  synod  in  Orange,  the  canons  of 
which  received  a  much  larger  significance  because  approved 
by  Pope  Boniface  II  (530-532).  They  practically  ended  the 
Semi-Pelagian  controversy,  though  Semi-Pelagian  positions 
have  always  largely  been  maintained  in  the  church.1  It  was 
affirmed  by  this  synod  that  man  is  not  only  under  original  sin, 
but  has  lost  all  power  to  turn  to  God,  so  that  "it  is  brought 
about  by  the  infusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  His  operation  in 
us  that  we  wish  to  be  set  free."  It  is  "by  the  free  gift  of  grace, 
that  is,  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  that  we  have 
"the  desire  of  believing"  and  "come  to  the  birth  of  holy  bap 
tism."  All  good  in  man  is  the  work  of  God.  Thus  many  of 
the  main  thoughts  of  Augustine  were  approved;  but  with  a 
decided  weakening  of  emphasis.  The  irresistibility  of  grace 
is  nowhere  affirmed.  On  the  contrary,  those  in  error  are  said 
to  "resist  that  same  Holy  Spirit."  Predestination  to  evil  is 
condemned.  But,  most  marked  of  all,  the  reception  of  grace 
is  so  bound  to  baptism  that  the  sacramental  quality  of  grace 
and  the  merit  of  good  works  are  put  in  the  foreground.  "We 
also  believe  this  to  be  according  to  the  Catholic  faith,  that  grace 
having  been  received  in  baptism,  all  who  have  been  baptized, 
can  and  ought,  by  the  aid  and  support  of  Christ,  to  perform 
those  things  which  belong  to  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  if  they 
1  Ayer,  pp.  472-476. 


190  GREGORY  THE  GREAT 

labor  faithfully."  1  Augustinianism  was  approved,  but  with 
undoubted  modification  in  the  direction  of  popular  " Catholic" 
religious  conceptions.  Its  sharp  points  were  blunted. 

SECTION  XX.      GREGORY  THE   GREAT 

The  tendencies  toward  a  blunted,  ecclesiastically  and  sacra- 
mentally  emphasized  presentation  of  Augustinianism,  which 
have  already  been  noted,  characterized  the  thinking  of  Gregory 
v/the  Great,  the  interpreter  of  Augustine  to  the  Middle  Ages. 
A  teacher  of  little  originality,  he  presented  the  theological  sys 
tem  already  developed  in  the  West,  in  essential  harmony  with 
the  popular  Christianity  of  his  age.  His  influence  was  thus 
far-reaching.  He  is  reckoned  with  Ambrose,  Augustine,  and 
Jerome  one  of  the  Doctors  of  the  Latin  Church.  In  adminis 
trative  abilities  and  achievements  Gregory  was  one  of  the  great 
est  of  the  Popes,  and  Latin  Christianity  generally  had  in  him 
a  leader  of  broad  vision  and  permanent  accomplishment. 

Gregory  was  born  in  Rome  of  a  senatorial  Christian  family 
about  540.  Before  573  he  was  made  prefect,  or  governor,  of 
the  city  by  the  Emperor  Justin  II.  The  monastic  life  attracted 
him  from  civil  distinctions,  and  by  574  he  had  devoted  his 
wealth  to  the  founding  of  monasteries  and  to  the  poor,  and 
become  a  member  of  the  monastery  of  St.  Andrew  in  what 
had  formerly  been  his  own  home  on  the  Cselian  hill.  Gregory 
always  retained  his  interest  in  monasticism,  and  did  much  for 
the  regulation  and  extension  of  the  monastic  life.  His  own 
temperament  was  too  active  for  the  cloister,  and  in  579  Pope 
Pelagius  II  (579-590)  sent  him  as  papal  ambassador  to  the 
court  of  Constantinople,  where  he  served  with  ability,  though, 
curiously,  without  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  Greek.  About 
586  he  was  once  more  in  Rome  as  the  abbot  of  St.  Andrew. 
In  590  he  was  chosen  Pope,  being  the  first  monk  to  attain  that 
office.  He  died  on  March  12,  604. 

The  time  of  Gregory's  papacy  was  propitious  for  an  able 
Pope.  The  papacy,  which  had  risen  high  under  Innocent  I 
(402-417)  and  Leo  I  (440-461),  had  sunk  in  power  after  Jus 
tinian  had  conquered  the  Ostrogoths  and  restored  the  imperial 
authority  in  Italy.  Since  568,  however,  the  control  of  the 
Emperors  in  Italy  had  more  and  more  waned  before  the  Lom- 

1  Ayer,  p.  475. 


GREGORY  THE  GREAT  191 

^bards,  who  threatened  Rome  itself.  Though  nominally  sub 
ject  to  the  Emperor,  Gregory  was  the  real  leader  against  Lom 
bard  aggression.  He  raised  troops,  defended  Rome  by  force 
and  by  tribute,  even  made  a  peace  with  the  Lombards  on  his 
own  authority  j  and  succeeded,  after  infinite  effort  and  con 
fused  struggles  both  with  the  Lombards  and  the  imperial  rep 
resentatives,  in  keeping  Rome  unconquered  throughout  his 
.pontificate.  He  was  the  strongest  man  in  Italy,  and  must 
have  seemed  to  the  Romans  and  to  the  Lombards  alike  far 
more  a  real  sovereign  than  the  distant  and  feeble  Emperor. 

The  support  of  the  papacy  as  well  as  the  source  of  much  of 
the  food  of  Rome  was  in  its  large  estates,  the  Patrimony  of 
Peter,  in  Sicily,  Italy,  and  even  in  southern  France  and  north 
ern  Africa.  Of  these  Gregory  showed  himself  an  energetic  but 
kindly  landlord.  Their  management  took  much  of  his  atten 
tion.  Their  revenues  increased,  and  Gregory  employed  this 
income  liberally  not  only  in  the  maintenance  of  the  clergy  and 
public  worship,  and  in  the  defense  of  Rome,  but  in  charitable 
foundations  and  good  works  of  all  kinds. 

Gregory  was  convinced  that  "to  all  who  know  the  Gospel 
it  is  apparent  that  by  the  Lord's  voice  the  care  of  the  whole 
church  was  committed  to  the  holy  Apostle  and  prince  of  all 
the  Apostles,  Peter."  l  He  would  exercise  a  jurisdiction  over 
the  church  as  Peter's  successor.  As  such,  he  protested  against 
certain  acts  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  inflicted  by  the  patriarch 
of  Constantinople,  John  the  Faster;  and  announced  that  he 
would  receive  an  appeal.  In  the  acts  sent  for  his  inspection 
Gregory  found  John  described  as  "universal  bishop."  Against 
this  claim  for  Constantinople  he  raised  vigorous  protest.2  His 
own  practice  was  the  employment  of  the  title  still  borne  by  the 
Roman  bishops,  "servant  of  the  servants  of  God."  He  exer 
cised  judicial  authority  with  greater  or  less  success  in  the 
affairs  of  the  churches  of  Ravenna  and  Illyria.  He  attempted 
to  interfere  in  the  almost  independent  life  of  the  church  of 
France,  re-establishing  the  papal  vicariate  in  Aries,  in  595, 
coming  into  friendly  relations  with  the  Frankish  court,  and  at 
tempting  to  remove  abuses  in  French  ecclesiastical  adminis 
tration.3  Here  his  success  was  small.  With  some  good  for 
tune  he  asserted  the  papal  authority  in  Spain,  where  the 
Visigothic  sovereign,  Recared,  had  renounced  Arianism  in  587. 

1  Letters,  520.  2  Ayer,  pp.  592-595.  3  Ibid.,  pp.  591-592. 


192  GREGORY'S  THEOLOGY 

Even  more  significant  for  the  future  was  Gregory's  far-reach 
ing  missionary  campaign  for  the  conversion  of  England,  in 
augurated  in  596,  of  which  some  account  will  be  given  (p.  198). 
It  not  only  advanced  markedly  the  cause  of  Christianity,  but 
was  the  initiation  of  a  closer  relationship  of  England,  and 
ultimately  of  Germany,  with  the  papacy  than  had  yet  been 
achieved  elsewhere.  Nearer  home,  among  the  Arian  Lom 
bards,  Gregory  inaugurated  ultimately  successful  efforts  to 
turn  them  to  the  Catholic  faith,  especially  through  the  aid  of 
Theodelinda,  who  was  successively  the  Queen  of  Kings  Authari 
(584-591)  and  Agilulf  (592-615). 

Tradition  has  ascribed  to  Gregory  a  great  work  in  the  refor 
mation  of  church  music — the  "Gregorian  chants" — and  in  the 
development  of  the  Roman  liturgy;  but  the  absence  of  con 
temporary  reference  makes  it  probable  that  his  services  in  both 
these  respects  were  relatively  inconspicious.  On  the  other 
hand,  his  abilities  as  a  preacher  were  undoubted.  As  a  writer 
three  of  his  works  maintained  high  popularity  throughout  the 
Middle  Ages — his  exposition  of  Job,  or  Moralia,  his  treatise  on 
the  character  and  duties  of  the  pastoral  office,  the  Regula  Pas- 
toralis,  and  his  credulous  Dialogues  on  the  Life  and  Miracles  of 
the  Italian  Fathers. 

Gregory's  theology  is  Augustinian,  but  with  another  em 
phasis  than  that  of  Augustine.  He  developed  all  of  Augus 
tine's  ecclesiastical  tendencies,  and  that  mass  of  material  from 
popular  Christianity  which  Augustine  took  up  into  his  system. 
Miracles,  angels,  and  the  devil  have  an  even  greater  part  in 
Gregory's  system  than  in  that  of  Augustine.  While  Gregory 
held  that  the  number  of  the  elect  is  fixed,  and  depends  upon 
God,  he  had  no  such  interest  in  predestination  as  had  Augus 
tine.  He  often  speaks  as  if  predestination  is  simply  divine 
foreknowledge.  His  interests  were  practical.  Man  is  fettered 
in  original  sin,  the  evidence  of  which  is  his  birth  through  lust. 
From  this  condition  he  is  rescued  by  the  work  of  Christ,  re 
ceived  in  baptism;  but  sins  committed  after  baptism  must  be 
satisfied.  Works  of  merit  wrought  by  God's  assisting  grace 
make  satisfaction.  "The  good  that  we  do  is  both  of  God  and 
of  ourselves ;  of  God  by  prevenient  grace,  our  own  by  good  will 
following."  :  Penance  is  the  proper  reparation  for  sins  after 
baptism.  It  involves  recognition  of  the  evil  of  the  sin,  con- 

i  Moralia,  3321. 


PURGATORY  193 

trition,  and  satisfaction.  The  church  has  many  helps  for  him 
who  would  seek  merit  or  exercise  penance.  Of  these  the  great 
est  is  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  Gregory  viewed  as  a  repetition 
of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  available  for  the  living  and  the  dead. 
There  is  also  the  aid  of  the  saints.  "Those  who  trust  in  no 
work  of  their  pwn  should  run  to  the  protection  of  the  holy 
martyrs."  l  For  those  who,  while  really  disciples  of  Christ, 
make  an.  insufficient  use  of  these  opportunities  to  achieve  works 
of  merit,  fail  to  do  penance,  or  avail  themselves  inadequately 
of  the  helps  offered  in  the  church,  there  remain  the  purifying 
fires  of  purgatory. 

The  thought  of  purgatory  was  not  new  with  Gregory.  The 
first  faint  intimation  may  be  found  in  Hernias  of  Rome.2 
With  Cyprian  it  is  more  evident,  and  he  cites  in  this  connec 
tion  Matt.  526.3  Augustine,  on  the  basis  of  1  Cor.  311'15,  argued 
that  purgatory  was  not  improbable,  though  he  felt  no  absolute 
certainty  regarding  it.4  Csesarius  of  Aries  held  more  definitely 
to  the  conception.  To  him  it  was  a  fact.  Gregory  now  taught 
purgatory  as  a  matter  essential  to  the  faith.  "It  is  to  be  be 
lieved  that  there  is  a  purgatorial  fire  before  the  judgment  for 
certain  light  sins."  5  Though  the  Eastern  Church  held  that  an 
intermediate  state  exists  between  death  and  the  judgment, 
and  souls  can  be  helped  therein  by  prayer  and  sacrifice,  its 
conception  of  purgatory  has  always  been  vague  compared  with 
that  of  the  West. 

Thus,  in  all  departments  of  ecclesiastical  activity  Gregory 
stood  forth  the  most  conspicuous  leader  of  his  time.  In  him 
the  Western  Church  of  the  Middle  Ages  already  exhibited  its 
characteristic  traits,  whether  of  doctrine,  life,  worship,  or  or 
ganization.  Its  growth  was  to  be  in  the  directions  in  which 
Gregory  had  moved. 

Contemporary  with  Gregory  in  part,  and  of  significance  as 
the  transmitter  of  much  of  the  theological  leaning  of  the  an 
cient  church  to  the  Middle  Ages,  was  Isidore,  the  head  of  the 
Spanish  church  from  about  GOO  to  636,  as  bishop  of  Seville. 
His  Book  of  Sentences — brief  statements  of  doctrine — was  to 
be  the  theological  text-book  of  the  Western  Church  till  the 
twelfth  century.  His  Origins  or  Etymologies  embraced  well- 
nigh  the  round  of  learning  of  his  age,  ecclesiastical  and  secular, 

1  Moralia,  1651.  2  Vis.,  37.  3  Letters,  51-5520. 

*  Enchiridion,  69 ;  City  of  God,  21 26.  6  Dialogues,  439. 


194  ISIDORE  OF  SEVILLE 

and  was  a  main  source  of  knowledge  in  the  Middle  Ages  of  the 
thought  of  antiquity.  His  value  as  a  historian  of  the  Goths  and 
Vandals  was  great.  In  him,  as  the  most  learned  man  of  his 
age,  all  the  earlier  Middle  Ages  were  to  find  a  teacher  of  little 
originality  but  of  remarkable  breadth  of  learning. 


PERIOD  IV.  THE  MIDDLE  AGES  TO  THE  CLOSE  OF 
THE  INVESTITURE  CONTROVERSY 

SECTION  I.      MISSIONS  IN  THE  BRITISH  ISLANDS 

THE  spread  of  Arianism  among  the  Germanic  tribes,  the  con 
version  of  the  Franks  to  the  Roman  faith,  and  the  gradual 
acceptance  of  Catholic  orthodoxy  by  the  Germanic  invaders 
have  already  been  noted  (ante,  pp.  129-134).  Much,  however, 
remained  to  be  done.  There  is  no  more  striking  proof  of  the 
vitality  of  the  church  in  the  collapsing  empire  and  the  opening 
Middle  Ages  than  the  vigor  and  success  with  which  it  under 
took  the  extension  of  Christianity. 

Christianity  had  some  foothold  in  the  British  Isles  before 
the  conversion  of  Constantine.  Bishops  of  York,  London,  and 
probably  Lincoln,  were  present  at  the  Council  of  Aries  in  314. 
Yet  it  survived  the  downfall  of  the  Roman  Empire  but  feebly 
among  the  Celtic  population,  while  much  of  the  soil  of  southern 
and  eastern  England  was  won  for  heathenism  by  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  invaders.  Some  slight  Christian  beginnings  were  to  be 
found  chiefly  in  the  south  of  Ireland  before  the  time  of  Patrick; 
but  he  so  advanced  the  cause  of  the  Gospel  in  that  island  and 
so  organized  its  Christian  institutions,  that  he  deserves  the 
title  of  the  Apostle  of  Ireland. 

Born  about  389,  possibly  in  southern  Wales,  Patrick  was  the 
son  of  a  deacon  and  the  grandson  of  a  priest.  His  training  was 
therefore  Christian.  Seized  in  a  raid  about  405,  he  was  for  six 
years  a  slave  in  Ireland.  Escaped  to  the  Continent,  Patrick 
was  for  a  considerable  time  an  inmate  of  the  monastery  of 
Lerins,  off  the  southern  coast  of  France.  In  432  he  was  or 
dained  a  missionary  bishop  by  Bishop  Germanus  of  Auxerre, 
and  began  the  work  in  Ireland  which  ended  with  his  death  in 
461.  Most  of  Patrick's  missionary  labors  were  in  northeastern 
Ireland,  though  not  without  some  efforts  in  the  south  and 
wilder  west.  Few  facts  survive;  but  of  his  zeal  there  can  be 
no  question,  and  as  little  of  his  conspicuous  abilities  as  an  or 
ganizer  under  whom  the  hitherto  scattered  Christianity  of 

195 


196  IRELAND  AND  SCOTLAND 

Ireland  was  systematized  and  made  great  advance.  He 
brought  the  island  in  some  measure  into  association  with  the 
Continent  and  with  Rome. 

It  seems  certain  that  Patrick  introduced  the  diocesan  epis 
copate  into  Ireland;  but  that  institution  was  soon  modified 
by  the  clan  system  of  the  island,  so  that  there  were,  instead, 
many  monastic  and  tribal  bishops.  Monasticism  was  favored 
by  Patrick;  but  the  great  developer  of  the  peculiar  Irish 
monasticism  was  Finian  of  Clonard  (470?-548),  under  whose 
leadership  a  strongly  missionary  and,  for  the  time,  a  notably 
learned  group  of  Irish  monasteries  came  into  being.  The 
monastic  schools  of  Ireland  were  justly  famous  in  the  sixth  and 
seventh  centuries.  The  glory  of  this  Irish  monasticism  was  its 
missionary  achievement. 

The  beginnings  of  Christianity  in  Scotland  are  very  obscure. 
Ninian  is  said  to  have  labored  there  in  the  fourth  century  and 
the  early  years  of  the  fifth,  but  of  his  date  and  real  work  little 
can  be  said.  Kentigern,  or  Mungo  (527?-612?),  who  spread 
Christianity  in  the  neighborhood  of  Glasgow,  is  almost  as  dim 
a  figure.  It  would  seem  probable  that  the  northern  Irish 
settlers  who  founded,  about  490,  the  kingdom  of  Dalriada,  em 
bracing  the  modern  Argyleshire,  came  as  Christians.  The 
great  missionary  to  Scotland  was  Columba  (521-597),  a  man 
closely  related  with  some  of  the  most  powerful  tribal  families 
of  Ireland,  and  a  pupil  of  Finian  of  Clonard.  Distinguished 
already  as  a  monk  and  a  founder  of  monasteries  in  Ireland,  he 
transferred  his  labors,  in  563,  to  Scotland,  establishing  himself 
with  twelve  companions  on  the  island  of  lona  or  Hy,  under  the 
protection  of  his  fellow  countryman  and  relative,  the  King  of 
Dalriada.  There  Columba  developed  a  most  flourishing  monas 
tery,  and  thence  he  went  forth  for  missionary  labors  among  the 
Picts,  who  occupied  the  northern  two-thirds  of  Scotland.  By 
Columba  and  his  associates  the  kingdom  of  the  Picts  was  won 
for  the  Gospel.  As  in  Ireland,  Christian  institutions  were 
largely  monastic.  There  were  no  dioceses,  and  even  the 
bishops  were  under  the  authority,  save  in  ordination,  of  Co 
lumba,  who  was  a  presbyter,  and  of  his  successors  as  abbots 
of  lona. 

These  Irish  missionary  efforts  were  carried  to  northern  Eng 
land,  among  the  Anglo-Saxons  of  Northumbria.  There,  on 
the  island  of  Lindisfarne,  off  the  extreme  northeastern  coast  of 


MISSIONARIES  OX  THE  CONTINENT          197 

England,  a  new  lona  was  established  by  Aidan,  a  monk  from 
lona,  in  634.  Thence  Christianity  was  widely  spread  in  the 
region  by  him  till  his  death  in  651,  and  afterward  by  his 
associates.  Nor  was  the  missionary  zeal  of  these  Celtic  monks 
by  any  means  confined  to  the  British  Islands.  Columbanus, 
or  Columba  the  Younger  (543?-615),  became  a  monk  of  the 
celebrated  Irish  monastery  of  Bangor,  which  was  founded  in 
558  by  ;Comgall,  a  leader  in  learning  and  missionary  zeal. 
From  Bangor,  Columbanus  set  forth,  about.  585,  with  twelve 
monastic  companions,  and  settled  in  Anegray,  in  Burgundy, 
near  which  he  planted  the  monastery  of  Luxeuil.  Driven 
forth  about  610,  in  consequence  of  his  prophet-like  rebuke  of 
King  Theuderich  II  and  the  King's  grandmother,  Brunhilda, 
Columbanus  worked  for  a  brief  time  in  northern  Switzerland, 
where  his  Irish  companion  and  disciple,  Callus,  was  to  live  as 
an  anchorite,  and  to  give  his  name  to,  rather  than  to  found,  the 
later  monastery  of  St.  Gall.  Columbanus  made  his  way  to 
northern  Italy,  and  there  established  in.  614,  in  the  Appenines, 
the  monastery  of  Bobbio,  in  which  he  died  a  year  later. 

Columbanus  was  onfy  one  of  the  earlier  of  a  number  of  Irish 
monks  who  labored  on  the  Continent — many  of  them  in  what 
is  now  central  and  southern  Germany.  Thus,  Kilian  wrought 
in  Wiirzburg  and  Virgil  in  Salzburg.  One  modification  of  Chris 
tian  practice,  of  great  later  importance,  was  introduced  on  the 
Continent  by  these  Irish  monks,  notably  by  Columbanus. 
The  entrance  of  thousands  into  the  church  when  Christianity 
was  accepted  by  the  state  had  largely  broken  down  the  old 
public  discipline.  There  had  grown  up  the  custom  of  private 
confession  among  the  monks  of  East  and  West.  Basil  had 
strongly  favored  it  in  the  East.  Nowhere  had  it"more  hearty 
support  than  among  the  Irish  monks,  and  by  them  it  was  ex 
tended  to  the  laity,  as  was  indeed  the  case,  to  some  extent,  by 
the  monks  of  the  East.  The  Irish  on  the  Continent  were  the 
introducers  of  private  lay  confession.  In  Ireland,  also,  grew 
up  the  first  extensive  penitential  books,  in  which  appropriate 
satisfactions  were  assessed  for  specific  sins — though  these  books 
had  their  antecedents  in  earlier  canons  of  councils.  These 
penitential  treatises  the  Irish  monks  made  familiar  on  the  Con 
tinent. 

Meanwhile,  a  work  of  the  utmost  significance  for  the  religious 
history  of  Britain  and  the  papacy  had  been  undertaken  bv 


198        ROMAN  MISSIONARIES  IN  ENGLAND 

Pope  Gregory  the  Great.  Moved  by  a  missionary  impulse 
which  he  had  long  felt,  and  taking  advantage  of  the  favorable 
situation  afforded  by  the  marriage  of  ^Ethelberht,  "King" 
of  Kent  and  overlord  of  much  of  southeastern  England,  to  a 
Frankish  Christian  princess,  Berhta,  Gregory  sent  a  Roman 
friend,  Augustine,  the  prior  of  his  beloved  monastery  on  the 
Cselian  hill,  with  a  number  of  monastic  companions,  to  at 
tempt  the  conversion  of  the  Anglo-Saxons.  The  expedition  left 
Rome  in  596,  but  its  courage  was  small,  and  all  the  persuasive 
power  of  Gregory  was  required  to  induce  it  to  proceed.  It  was 
not  till  the  spring  of  597  that  the  party,  reinforced  by  Frank 
ish  assistants,  reached  Canterbury.  ^Ethelberht  and  many 
of  his  followers  soon  accepted  Christianity.  Gregory  looked 
upon  the  struggle  as  already  won.  Augustine  received  epis 
copal  consecration  from  Vergilius  of  Aries  in  November,  597, 
and,  by  601,  Gregory  appointed  Augustine  metropolitan  with 
authority  to  establish  twelve  bishops  under  his  jurisdiction. 
When  northern  England  should  be  converted  a  similar  metro- 
politanate  was.  to  be  established  in  York.  London  and  York 
were  to  be  the  ecclesiastical  capitals.  The  British  bishops, 
over  whom  Gregory  had  no  recognized  jurisdiction,  the  Pope 
committed  to  the  superintendency  of  Augustine.1  The  task 
in  reality  was  to  prove  much  more  arduous  than  it  seemed  to 
Gregory's  sanguine  vision,  and  the  greater  part  of  a  century 
was  to  pass,  before  Christianity  was  to  be  dominant  in  Eng 
land.  Yet  the  movement,  thus  inaugurated,  was  vastly  to 
strengthen  the  papacy.  The  Anglo-Saxons  owed  their  conver 
sion  chiefly  to  the  direct  efforts  of  Rome,  and  they  in  turn 
displayed  a  devotion  to  the  papacy  not  characteristic  of  the 
older  lands,  like  France  and  Spain,  where  Christianity  had  been 
otherwise  introduced.  Anglo-Saxon  Christianity  was  to  pro 
duce,  moreover,  some  of  the  most  energetic  of  missionaries 
by  whom  the  Gospel  and  papal  obedience  were  alike  to  be 
advanced  on  the  Continent. 

England  was  not  brought  to  the  acceptance  of  Christianity 
without  much  vicissitude.  The  hegemony  of  Kent  was  wan 
ing  before  the  death  of  ^Ethelberht,  and  with  it  the  first  Chris 
tian  triumphs  were  eclipsed.  Northumbria  gradually  gained 
leadership.  It  was  a  success  when  Edwin,  King  of  North- 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  Documents  Illustrative  of  English  Church  History,  pp. 
9,  10. 


ROMAN  AUTHORITY  TRIUMPHS  199 

umbria,  was  converted  through  the  work  of  Paulinus,  soon  to 
be  bishop  of  York,  in  627.  The  heathen  King,  Penda  of  Mercia, 
however,  defeated  and  slew  Edwin  in  633,  and  a  heathen  re 
action  followed  in  Northumbria.  Under  King  Oswald,  who 
had  become  a  Christian  when  an  exile  in  lona,  Christianity 
was  re-established  in  Northumbria,  chiefly  through  the  aid  of 
Aidan  (ante,  p.  197).  It  was  of  the  Irish,  or  as  it  is  often  called, 
the  "Old  British"  type.  Penda  once  more  attacked,  and  in 
642  Oswald  was  killed  in  battle.  Oswald's  brother,  Oswy,  like 
him  a  convert  of  lona,  after  much  struggle  secured  all  of  North 
umbria  by  651,  and  a  widely  recognized  overlordship  besides. 
English  Christianity  was  becoming  firmly  established. 

From  the  first  coming  of  the  Roman  missionaries  there  had 
been  controversy  between  them  and  their  Irish  or  Old  British 
fellow  Christians.  The  points  of  difference  seem  of  minor 
importance.  An  older  system  of  reckoning,  discarded  in  Rome, 
resulted  in  diversity  as  to  the  date  of  Easter.  The  forms  of 
tonsure  were  unlike.  Some  variations,  not  now  recoverable, 
existed  in  the  administration  of  baptism.  Furthermore,  as 
has-been  pointed  out,  Roman  Christianity  was  firmly  organized 
4  and  diocesan,  while  that  of  the  Old  British  Church  was  monastic 
and  tribal.  While  the  Old  British  missionaries  looked  upon 
the  Pope  as  the  highest  dignitary  in  Christendom,  the  Roman 
representatives  ascribed  to  him  a  judicial  authority  which  the 
Old  British  did  not  fully  admit.  Southern  Ireland  accepted  the 
Roman  authority  about  630.  In  England  the  decision  came 
at  a  synod  held  under  King  Oswy  at  Whitby  in  664.  There 
Bishop  Colman  of  Lindisfarne  defended  the  Old  British 
usages,  while  Wilfrid,  once  of  Lindisfarne,  but  won  for  Rome  on 
a  pilgrimage,  and  soon  to  be  bishop  of  York,  opposed.  The 
Roman  custom  regarding  Easter  was  approved,  and  with  it  the 
Roman  cause  in  England  won  the  day.  By  703  northern  Ire 
land  had  followed  the  same  path,  and  by  718,  Scotland.  In 
Wales  the  process  of  accommodation  was  much  slower,  and  was 
not  completed  till  the  twelfth  century.  In  England  this 
strengthening  of  the  Roman  connection  was  much  furthered  by 
the  appointment,  in  668,  by  Pope  Vitalian,  of  a  Roman  monk, 
Theodore,  a  native  of  Tarsus  in  Cilicia,  as  archbishop  of  Canter 
bury.  An  organizer  of  ability,  he  did  much  to  make  permanent 
the  work  begun  by  his  predecessors. 

The  two  streams  of  missionary  effort  combined  to  the  advan- 


200  FRANKISH  CHURCH  AND  RULERS 

tage  of  English  Christianity.  If  that  from  Rome  contributed 
order,  the  Old  British  gave  missionary  zeal  and  love  of  learning. 
The  scholarship  of  the  Irish  monasteries  was  transplanted  to 
England,  and  was  there  strengthened  by  frequent  Anglo- 
Saxon  pilgrimages  to  Rome.  Of  this  intellectual  movement  a 
conspicuous  illustration  was  Bede,  generally  called  the  "Vener 
able"  (672?-735).  An  almost  life-long  member  of  the  joint 
monastery  of  Wearmouth  and  Jarrow  in  Northumbria,  his  learn 
ing,  like  that  of  Isidore  of  Seville,  a  century  earlier,  embraced 
the  full  round  of  knowledge  of  his  age,  and  made  him  a  teacher 
of  generations  to  come.  He  wrote  on  chronology,  natural  phe 
nomena,  the  Scriptures,  and  theology.  Above  all,  he  is  remem 
bered  for  his  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  English  Nation,  a 
work  of  great  merit  and  the  chief  source  of  information  regard 
ing  the  Christianization  of  the  British  Islands. 

SECTION  II.      CONTINENTAL  MISSIONS  AND   PAPAL  GROWTH 

With  the  conversion  of  Clovis  to  orthodox  Christianity 
(496)  (ante,  p.  133),  a  close  relationship  of  church  and  state  be 
gan  in  the  Prankish  dominions.  To  a  large  extent  it  was  true 
that  Frankish  conquest  and  Christianization  were  two  sides 
of  the  same  shield.  Under  the  descendants  of  Clovis — the 
Merovingian  Kings — the  internal  condition  of  the  Frankish 
church  sank,  however,  to  a  low  ebb.  Bishops  and  abbots  were 
appointed  for  political  considerations,  much  church  land  was 
confiscated  or  put  in  secular  hands.  Even  the  efforts  of  Greg 
ory  I  to  gain  more  effective  papal  control  in  France  and  to 
effect  reform  had  little  lasting  result. 

The  political  collapse  of  the  Merovingians,  led  to  the  rise  to 
power  of  the  Carolingian  house,  originally  "mayors  of  the  pal 
ace,"  which  was  accomplished  when  Pippin,  called,  not  wholly 
correctly,  of  Heristal,  won  the  battle  of  Tertry  in  687.  The 
Merovingian  Kings  continued  in  name,  but  the  real  authority 
was  exercised  by  Pippin  as  "duke  of  the  Franks."  After  his 
death  in  714,  his  illegitimate  son  Charles  Martel  (715-741)  ex 
ercised  all  the  powers  of  a  King.  By  him  the  Mohammedan 
advance  in  western  Europe  was  permanently  stayed,  by  the 
great  battle  between  Tours  and  Poitiers  in  732.  He  saw  the 
advantage  of  churchly  aid,  and  supported  missionary  effort  in 
western  Germany  and  the  Netherlands,  where  he  wished  to  ex- 


BONIFACE  AS  A  MISSIONARY  201 

tend  his  political  control.  Yet  neither  Pippin  "of  Heristal" 
nor  Charles  Martel  were  more  helpful  to  the  church  of  their 
own  territories  than  the  Merovingians.  They  exploited  it  for 
political  reasons,  secularized  its  lands,  and  did  little  to  check 
its  disorders.  Nevertheless,  under  Charles  Martel  a  great  mis 
sionary  and  reformatory  work  was  initiated  that  was  to  Chris 
tianize  large  sections  of  western  Germany,  reform  the  Frankish 
church,  and  bring  the  papacy  and  the  Franks  into  relations  of 
the  utmost  consequence  to  both. 

Willibrord  (657?-739),  a  Northumbrian,  began  missionary 
work  in  Frisia  with  the  support  of  Pippin  of  Heristal,  and,  in 
695,  was  consecrated  a  missionary  bishop  by  Pope  Sergius  I— 
an  action  which  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  the  see  of 
Utrecht.  His  work  had  scanty  success,  and  was  taken  up  by 
one  of  the  ablest  and  most  remarkable  men  of  the  period— 
Winfrid  or  Boniface  (680?-754).  An  Anglo-Saxon  of  Devon 
shire  by  birth,  Winfrid  became  a  monk  of  Nutcell  near  Win 
chester.  In  716,  he  began  missionary  labors  in  Frisia,  but 
with  such  ill  success  that  he  returned  to  England.  In  718  and 
719,  he  was  in  Rome,  where  he  received  from  Pope  Gregory  II 
(715-731)  appointment  to  labor  in  Germany.  From  719  to 
722,  he  wrorked  in  Frisia  and  Hesse,  going  once  more  to  Rome 
in  the  year  last  named,  and  receiving  consecration  as  a  mis 
sionary  bishop,  swearing  allegiance  to  the  Pope.1  The  next  ten 
years  witnessed  a  great  success  in  Hesse  and  Thuringia.  Not 
only  were  heathen  converted,  but  the  Irish  monks  were  brought 
largely  into  obedience  to  Rome.  Gregory  III  (731-741)  made 
Boniface  an  archbishop  in  732,  with  authority  to  found  new  sees. 
After  a  third  journey  to  Rome,  in  738,  he  thus  organized  the 
church  of  Bavaria,  and  a  little  later  that  of  Thuringia.  In 
744,  he  aided  his  disciple,  Sturm,  in  the  foundation  of  the  great 
Benedictine  monastery  of  Fulda,  destined  to  be  a  centre  of 
learning  and  priestly  education  for  all  western-central  Ger 
many.  Between  746  and  748,  Boniface  was  made  archbishop 
of  Mainz,  which  thus  became  the  leading  German  see.  In  all 
this  Boniface  strengthened  the  causes  of  order  and  discipline 
Jand  increased  papal  authority.  His  work  was  greatly  aided 
by  the  considerable  numbers  of  men  and  women  who  came  as 
fellow  workers  from  his  native  England,  and  for  whom  he 
found  place  in  monastic  and  other  Christian  service. 

1  Robinson,  Readings  in  European  History,  1 :  105-111. 


202  BONIFACE'S  REFORMS 

The  death  of  Charles  Martel  in  741  saw  his  authority  divided 
between  his  sons  Carloman  (741-747),  and  Pippin  the  Short 
(741-768).  Both  were  far  more  churchly  than  their  father, 
and  Carloman  ultimately  retired  from  power  to  become  a 
monk.  While  neither  would  abandon  authority  over  the 
Frankish  church,  both  supported  Boniface  in  the  abolition  of 
its  worst  irregularities  and  abuses,  and  in  a  closer  connec 
tion  with  Rome.  In  a  series  of  synods  held  under  Boniface's 
leadership,  beginning  in  742,  the  worldliness  of  the  clergy  was 
attacked,  wandering  bishops  censured,  priestly  marriage  con 
demned,  and  stricter  clerical  discipline  enforced.  At  a  synod 
held  in  747  the  bishops  assembled  recognized  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  papacy,  though,  as  the  civil  rulers  were  not  present, 
these  conclusions  lacked  the  force  of  Frankish  law.  The  Frank 
ish  church,  thanks  to  the  work  of  Boniface,  was  vastly  bettered 
in  organization,  character,  and  discipline,  while,  what  was 
equally  valued  by  him,  the  authority  of  the  papacy  therein 
was  very  decidedly  increased,  even  though  that  of  the  mayor 
of  the  palace  continued  the  more  potent. 

As  Boniface  drew  toward  old  age  his  thoughts  turned  toward 
the  mission  work  in  Frisia,  with  which  he  had  begun.  He  se 
cured  the  appointment  of  his  Anglo-Saxon  disciple,  Lull,  as 
his  successor  in  the  see  of  Mainz.  In  754  he  went  to  Frisia, 
and  there  was  murdered  by  the  heathen,  thus  crowning  his  act 
ive  and  widely  influential  life  with  a  death  of  witness  to  his 
faith.  His  work  had  been  one  for  order,  discipline,  and  con- 
solidation,  as  well  as  Christian  advancement,  and  these  were 
the  chief  needs  of  the  age. 

SECTION    III.      THE   FRANKS  AND   THE   PAPACY 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  (ante,  p.  162)  that  the  pa 
pacy,  and  Italy  generally,  opposed  the  iconoclastic  efforts  of 
the  Emperor  Leo  III,  going  so  far  as  to  excommunicate  the 
opponents  of  pictures  in  a  Roman  synod  held  under  Gregory 
III,  in  731.  The  Emperor  answered  by  removing  southern 
Italy  and  Sicily  from  papal  jurisdiction,  and  placing  these 
regions  under  the  see  of  Constantinople — a  matter  long  a  thorn 
in  the  side  of  the  papacy.  In  Rome  and  northern  Italy  the 
imperial  power  exercised  from  Constantinople  was  too  feeble 
to  control  papal  action.  The  imperial  representative  was  the 


CORONATION  OF  PIPPIN  203 

exarch  of  Ravenna,  under  whom  stood  a  duke  of  Rome  for 
military  affairs,  though  the  Pope  was  in  many  respects  the 
Emperor's  representative  in  the  civil  concerns  of  the  city. 
The  papacy  was  now  in  practical  rebellion  against  the  rulers 
who  had  their  seat  in  Constantinople.  It  was,  however,  in  a 
most  dangerous  position.  The  Lombards  were  pressing,  and 
were  threatening  the  capture  of  Rome.  The  disunion  conse 
quent  pn  the  iconoclastic  dispute  made  it  necessary,  if  the 
papacy  was  to  maintain  any  considerable  independence  in 
Rome,  to  find  other  protection  against  the  Lombards  than  that 
,of  the  Emperor.  This  the  Popes  sought,  and  at  last  obtained, 
J  from  the  Franks. 

In  739  Gregory  III  appealed  to  Charles  Martel  for  aid 
against  the  Lombards,  but  in  vain.  With  Pippin  the  Short  it 
was  otherwise.  He  was  more  ecclesiastically  minded,  and 
greater  plans  than  even  his  father  had  entertained  now  moved 
him.  Pippin  and  the  papacy  could  be  of  mutual  assistance 
each  to  the  other.  The  new  Lombard  King,  Aistulf  (749-756), 
conquered  Ravenna  from  the  Emperor  in  751  and  was  griev 
ously  pressing  Rome  itself.  Pippin  desired  the  kingly  title  as 
well  as  the  kingly  power  in  France.  He  had  determined  upon 
a  revolution  which  should  relegate  the  last  of  the  feeble  Mero 
vingians,  Childeric  III,  to  a  monastery,  and  place  Pippin  him 
self  on  the  throne.  For  this  change  he  desired  not  only  the 
approval  of  the  Frankish  nobility,  but  the  moral  sanction  of 
the  church.  He  appealed  to  Pope  Zacharias  (741-752).  The 
Pope's  approval  was  promptly  granted,  and  before  the  close 
of  751,  Pippin  was  formally  in  the  kingly  office.  To  this  he 
was  anointed  and  crowned,  but  whether  by  Boniface,  as  has 
usually  been  supposed,  is  uncertain. 

This  transaction,  which  seems  to  have  been  simple  at  the 
time,  was  fraught  with  the  most  far-reaching  consequences. 
From  it  might  be  drawn  the  conclusion  that  it  was  within  the 
Pope's  powrer  to  give  and  withhold  kingdoms.  All  unseen  in 
it,  were  wrapped  up  the  re-establishment  of  the  empire  in  the 
West,  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  and  that  interplay  of  papacy 
and  empire  which  forms  so, large  a  part  of  the  history  of  the 
Middle  Ages.  From  this  point  of  view  it  was  the  most  impor 
tant  event  of  mediaeval  history. 

If  the  Pope  could  thus  help  Pippin,  the  latter  could  be  no 
less  serviceable  to  the  Pope.  Aistulf  and  his  Lombards  con- 


204  THE  STATES  OF  THE  CHURCH 

tinned  to  press  Rome.  Stephen  II,  therefore,  went  to  Pippin 
himself,  crowning  and  anointing  Pippin  and  his  sons  afresh  in 
the  church  of  St.  Denis  near  Paris,  in  754,  and  confirming  to 
them  the  indefinite  title  of  "Patricians  of  the  Romans" — all  the 
more  useful,  perhaps,  because  implying  a  relation  to  Rome  that 
was  wholly  undefined.  It  had  been  borne  by  the  imperial 
exarch  in  Ravenna.  Soon  after  this  crowning,  Pippin  fulfilled 
his  reciprocal  obligation.  At  the  head  of  a  Prankish  army, 
late  in  754,  or  early  in  755,  he  invaded  Italy  and  compelled 
Aistulf  to  agree  to  surrender  to  the  Pope  Ravenna  and  the  other 
recent  Lombard  conquests.  A  second  campaign,  in  756,  was 
necessary  before  the  Lombard  King  made  good  his  promise. 
The  Exarchate  of  which  Ravenna  was  the  capital  and  the 
Pentapolis  were  now  the  possessions  of  the  Pope.  The  "States 
of  the  Church"  were  begun — that  temporal  sovereignty  of  the 
papacy  which  was  to  last  till  1870.  Yet,  as  far  as  can  now 
be  judged,  in  thus  granting  the  Exarchate  to  Pope  Stephen, 
Pippin  regarded  himself  as  overlord.  Rome  itself,  Pippin  did 
not  give  to  the  Pope.  It  was  not  his  to  give.  Legally,  the 
status  of  Rome  would  have  been  hard  to  define.  Though  the 
Popes  had  practically  broken  with  the  Emperor  at  Constanti 
nople,  Rome  had  not  been  conquered  from  him.  Indeed  the 
papacy  recognized  the  sovereignty  of  the  Eastern  Emperor  in 
the  style  of  its  public  documents  till  772.  Pippin  had  the 
wholly  nebulous  rights  that  might  be  included  in  the  title 
"Patrician  of  the  Romans."  Actually,  Rome  was  in  the  pos 
session  of  the  Pope. 

Though  the  Pope  was  thus  now  a  territorial  ruler,  the  extent- 
of  his  possessions  was  far  from  satisfying  papal  ambition,  if' 
one  may  judge  by  a  curious  forgery,  the  authorship  of  which- 
is  unknown,  but  which  seems  to  date  from  this  period — the 
so-called  "Donation  of  Constantine."  l  In  charter  form,  and 
with  an  expression  of  a  creed,  and  a  fabulous  account  of  his 
conversion  and  baptism,  Constantine  ordered  all  ecclesiastics 
to  be  subject  to  Pope  Sylvester  and  successive  occupants  of  the 
Roman  see,  and  transferred  to  them  "the  city  of  Rome  and  all 
the  provinces,  districts,  and  cities  of  Italy  or  of  the  Western 
regions."  This  meant  a  sovereignty  over  the  Western  half 
of  the  empire — at  least  an  overlordship.  Discredited  by  a  few 
of  the  wiser  men  of  the  Middle  Ages,  the  "Donation"  was  gen- 

1  Henderson,  Select  Historical  Documents,  pp.  319-329. 


CHARLEMAGNE  205 

erally  believed,  till  its  falsity  was  demonstrated  by  Nicholas    . 
of  Cues  in  1433  and  Lorenzo  Valla  in  1440. 


SECTION    IV.      CHARLEMAGNE 

Pippin  the  Short  died  in  768.  A  strong  ruler,  his  fame  has 
been  unduly  eclipsed  by  that  of  his  greater  son,  who,  in  general, 
simply;  carried  further  what  the  father  had  begun.  Pippin 
had  divided  his  kingdom  between  his  two  sons,  Charles  and 
Carloman.  Ill  will  existed  between  the  brothers,  but  the 
situation  was  relieved  by  the  death  of  Carloman  in  771.  With 
that  event  the  real  reign  of  Charles,  to  whom  the  world  has 
so  ascribed  the  title  "Great"  as  to  weave  it  indissolubly  with 
his  name — Charlemagne — began. 

Charlemagne,  perhaps  more  than  any  other  sovereign  in 
history,  was  head  over  all  things  to  his  age.  A  warrior  of  great 
gifts,  he  more  than  doubled  his  father's  possessions.  When 
he  died  his  sway  ruled  all  of  modern  France,  Belgium,  and  Hol 
land,  nearly  half  of  modern  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary, 
more  than  half  of  Italy,  and  a  bit  of  northeastern  Spain.  It  was 
nearer  imperial  size  than  anything  that  had  been  seen  since 
the  downfall  of  the  Western  Roman  Empire.  Conquest  was 
but  part  of  his  work.  His  armies,  by  extending  the  frontier, 
gave  rest  and  time  for  consolidation  to  the  central  portion  of 
his  territories.  He  was  the  patron  of  learning,  the  kindly  mas 
ter  of  the  church,  the  preserver  of  order,  to  whom  nothing 
seemed  too  small  for  attention  or  too  great  for  execution. 

A  quarrel  with  Desiderius,  King  of  the  Lombards,  resulted 
in  the  conquest  and  extinction  of  that  kingdom  by  Charle 
magne  in  two  campaigns  in  the  years  774  to  777.  Pippin's 
grants  to  the  papacy  were  renewed,  but  the  situation  was 
practically  altered.  The  papacy  was  no  longer  separated  as 
it  had  been  from  the  main  Prankish  territories  by  the  inter 
vening  Lombard  kingdom.  Charlemagne's  connection  with 
Rome  was  a  much  more  effective  overlordship  than  that  of  his 
father,  and  he  thenceforth  treated  the  Pope  as  the  chief  prel 
ate  of  his  realm,  rather  than  as  an  independent  power,  though 
he  did  not  go  so  far  as  to  dictate  the  choice  of  the  Popes,  as  he 
did  that  of  the  bishops  of  his  kingdom. 

Highly  important  for  the  extension  of  Christianity  was 
Charlemagne's  conquest  of  the  Saxons,  then  occupying  what 


206        CHARLEMAGNE  CROWNED  EMPEROR 

is  now  northwestern  Germany — a  result  achieved  only  after 
a  series  of  campaigns  lasting  from  772  to  804.  His  forcible 
imposition  of  Christianity  was  made  permanent  by  the  more 
peaceful  means  of  planting  bishoprics  and  monasteries  through- 
out^the  Saxon  land.  By  this  conversion  the  last  considerable 
Germanic  tribe,  and  one  of  the  most  gifted  and  energetic,  was 
brought  into  the  Christian  family  of  Europe  to  its  permanent 
advantage.  Frisia,  also,  now  became  a  wholly  Christian  land. 
Charlemagne's  contests  with  the  rebellious  duke,  Tassilo,  of 
already  Christianized  Bavaria,  led  not  only  to  the  full  absorp 
tion  of  the  Bavarian  bishoprics  in  the  Prankish  ecclesiastical 
system,  but  to  successful  wars  against  the  Avars  and  the  ex 
tension  of  Christianity  into  much  of  what  is  now  Austria. 

Such  a  ruler,  devoted  equally  to  the  extension  of  political 
power  and  of  Christianity,  and  controlling  the  greater  part  of 
Western  Christendom,  was,  indeed,  a  figure  of  imperial  pro 
portions.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  Pope  Leo  III 
(795-816),  who  was  greatly  indebted  to  Charlemagne  for  pro 
tection  from  disaffected  Roman  nobles,  placed  on  the  head  of 
the  Frankish  King  the  Roman  imperial  crown  as  the  latter 
knelt  in  St.  Peter's  Church  on  Christmas  day,  800.  To  the 
thinking  of  the  Roman  populace  who  applauded,  as  to  the  West 
generally,  it  was  the  restoration  of  the  empire  to  the  West, 
that  had  for  centuries  been  held  by  the  ruler  in  Constan 
tinople.  It  placed  Charlemagne  in  the  great  succession  from 
Augustus.  It  gave  a  theocratic  stamp  to  that  empire.  Un 
expected,  and  not  wholly  welcome  at  the  time  to  Charlemagne, 
it  was  the  visible  embodiment  of  a  great  ideal.  The  Roman 
Empire,  men  thought,  had  never  died,  and  now  God's  consecra 
tion  had  been  given  to  a  Western  Emperor  by  the  hands  of 
His  representative.  It  was  not,  necessarily,  a  rejection  of  the 
imperial  title  of  the  ruler  in  Constantinople.  The  later  empire 
had  frequently  seen  two  Emperors,  East  and  West.  Leo  V 
(813-820),  the  Emperor  in  Constantinople,  later,  formally 
recognized  the  imperial  title  of  his  Western  colleague.  For 
the  West  and  for  the  papacy  the  coronation  was  of  the  utmost 
consequence.  It  raised  questions  of  imperial  power  and  of 
papal  authority  that  were  to  be  controverted  throughout  the 
Middle  Ages.  It  emphasized  the  feeling  that  church  and 
state  were  but  two  sides  of  the  same  shield,  the  one  leading 
man  to  temporal  happiness,  the  other  to  eternal  blessedness, 


15        Long.       10         AVest        5 


10      Long.     15       East 


EUROPE 

IN  THE  TIME  OF 

CHARLEMAGNE. 


fruui      25    Greemv.  30 


T> 


LEARNING  REVIVED  UNDER  CHARLEMAGNE    207 

and  both  closely  related  and  owing  mutual  helpfulness.  It 
made  more  evident  than  ever  the  deep-seated  religious  anoT 
political  cleavage  between  East  and  West.  To  the  great  Em 
peror  himself  it  seemed  the  fulfilment  of  the  dream  of  Augus 
tine's  City  off  God  (ante,  p.  184) — the  union  of  Christendom  in 
a  kingdom  of  God,  of  which  he  was  the  earthly  head.  His 
power  was  never  greater  than  when  he  died,  in  814. 

At  Charlemagne's  accession  no  schools  were  so  flourishing 
in  Western  Europe  as  those  to  be  found  in  connection  with  the 
monasteries  of  the  British  Islands.  It  was  from  England  that 
this  many-sided  monarch  procured  his  chief  intellectual  and 
literary  assistant.  Alcuin  (735?-804)  was  probably  a  native, 
and  certainly  a  student  of  York.  From  781  to  his  death,  with 
some  interruptions,  he  was  Charlemagne's  main  aid  in  a  real 
renaissance  of  classical  and  Biblical  learning,  that  rendered  the 
reign  bright  compared  with  the  years  before,  and  raised  the  in 
tellectual  life  of  the  Prankish  state.  Charlemagne  himself, 
though  without  becoming  much  of  a  scholar,  set  the  example 
as  an  occasional  pupil  in  this  "school  of  the  palace."  In  796 
Charlemagne  made  Alcuin  the  head  of  the  monastery  of  St. 
Martin  in  Tours,  which  now  became  under  his  leadership  a 
centre  of  learning  for  the.  whole  Frankish  realm.  Others 
helped  in  this  intellectual  revival,  like  the  Lombard,  Paul  the 
Deacon  (720?-795),  the  Frank,  Einhard  (770?-840),  or  the 
Visigoth,  Theodulf  (760?-821).  The  mere  mention  of  these 
various  national  relationships  shows  the  care  which  Charle 
magne  exhibited  to  secure  from  any  portion  of  Western  Europe 
those  who  could  raise  the  intellectual  standards  of  his  empire. 

With  this  growth  of  learning  came  theological  discussion. 
The  Spanish  bishops,  Elipandus  of  Toledo  and  Felix  of  Urgel, 
taught  an  adoptionist  Christology — that  Christ,  though  in  His 
divine  nature  the  Son  of  God,  was  in  His  human  nature  only  a 
son  by  adoption.  Under  Charlemagne's  leadership  these  opin 
ions  were  condemned  in  synods  held  in  Regensburg  (792)  and 
Frankfort  (794).  In  this  work  Charlemagne  regarded  himself 
as  the  theological  guide  no  less  than  the  protector  of  the  church. 
In  similar  fashion,  at  the  synod  of  Frankfort  just  mentioned, 
Charlemagne  had  the  conclusions  of  the  General  Council  of 
787vin  Nicsea  (ante,  p.  163),  condemned,  rejected  its  approval 
of  picture  reverence,  and  caused  the  Libri  Carolini,  defending 
his  position,  to  be  issued.  In  809,  at  a  synod  in  Aachen,  Char- 


208  ECCLESIASTICAL   MODIFICATIONS 

lemagne  approved  the  Spanish  addition  filioque  (ante,  p.  180) 
to  the  so-called  Nicene-Constantinopolitan  creed.  All  these 
acts  were  in  consultation  with  the  bishops  and  theologians  of 
his  realm,  but  with  no  special  deference  to  the  Pope  or  refer 
ence  of  the  matters  to  papal  judgment. 

SECTION  V.      ECCLESIASTICAL  INSTITUTIONS 

Roman  political  institutions  were  based  on  the  cities,  on  which 
the  surrounding  country  was  dependent,  and  Christian  organ 
ization  followed  the  same  rule.  The  country  districts  were 
dependent  upon  and  were  cared  for  by  the  city  bishops  and 
their  appointees,  save  where,  in  the  East,  there  were  "country 
bishops."  The  Germanic  invasions  altered  this  situation. 
By  the  sixth  century  the  beginnings  of  the  parish  system  were 
to  be  found  in  France  (ante,  p.  166).  There  it  rapidly  grew, 
and  it  was  stimulated  by  the  custom  of  the  foundation  of 
churches  by  large  landowners.  The  founders  and  their  heirs 
retained  the  right  of  nominating  the  incumbent.  This  situa 
tion  left  episcopal  control  uncertain.  Charlemagne,  there 
fore,  provided  that  besides  the  right  of  ordination  of  all  parish 
priests,  the  bishop  should  have  visitorial  and  disciplinary  power 
throughout  his  diocese.  The  churchly  status  was  further 
strengthened  by  the  full  legal  establishment  of  tithes.  Long 
favored  by  the  clergy  through  Old  Testament  example,  they 
were  demanded  by  a  Frankish  synod  in  Macon,  in  585.  By 
Pippin  they  were  treated  as  a  legal  charge,  and  full  legal  sanc 
tion  was  given  them  by  Charlemagne.  They  were  to  be  col 
lected  not  only  by  bishops,  but  by  and  for  the  use  of  the  incum 
bent  of  each  parish.  Moreover,  constant  gifts  of  lands  to  the 
church  had  raised  ecclesiastical  possessions,  by  the  time  of  the 
early  Carolingians,  to  a  third  of  the  soil  of  France.  The  great 
holdings  were  a  constant  temptation  in  the  financial  need  of  a 
Charles  Martel,  who  secularized  much,  but  under  the  friendly 
government  of  Charlemagne  they  were  respected,  if  earlier 
confiscations  were  not  restored. 

Under  Charlemagne,  preaching  was  encouraged  and  books  of 
sermons  prepared.  Confession  was  favored,  though  not  yet 
obligatory.  Every  Christian  was  expected  to  be  able  to  repeat 
the  Lord's  Prayer  and  the  Apostles'  Creed. 

Charlemagne  renewed  and  extended  the  metropolitan  system, 


METROPOLITANS  AND  ARCHBISHOPS        209 

which  had  fallen  into  abeyance.  At  the  beginning  of  his  reign 
there  was  but  one  metropolitan  in  the  Prankish  kingdom.  At 
its  end  there  were  twenty-two.  These  were  now  generally 
known  as  archbishops — a  title  which  goes  back  to  the  time  of 
Athanasius,  though  long  loosely  used.  In  Carolingian  theory 
the  archbishop  was  the  judge  and  disciplinary  officer  of  the 
bishops  of  his  province,  possessed  of  powers  which  the  growth 
of  papal  jurisdiction  was  soon  to  curtail.  It  was  also  his  duty 
to  call  frequent  synods  to  consider  the  religious  problems  of 
the  archdiocese,  or  as  it  was  usually  styled,  the  province. 

For  the  better  regulation  of  his  immediate  clerical  assistants, 
Bishop  Chrodegang  of  Metz  introduced,  about  760,  a  semi- 
monastic  life  in  common,  which  was  favored  and  spread  by 
Charlemagne.  From  the  designation  of  this  life  as  the  vita 
canonica,  the  name  "canons"  for  the  clergy  attached  to  a  cathe 
dral  or  collegiate  church  arose.  Their  place  of  meeting  was 
called  the  capitulum,  or  chapter — a  title  soon  applied  to  the 
canons  themselves.  By  this  means  the  life  and  work  of  the 
bishop  and  his  immediately  associated  clergy  was  largely 
regulated.  Charlemagne  himself  designated  the  bishops  of 
his  realm. 

In  all  these  changes,  save  that  of  personal  authority  over 
episcopal  appointments,  Charlemagne  was  but  carrying  further 
the  reforms  begun  by  Boniface.  Much  that  he  completed 
his  father,  Pippin,  had  commenced.  At  Charlemagne's  death, 
the  Prankish  church  was  in  a  far  better  state  of  education,  dis 
cipline,  and  efficiency  than  it  had  been  under  the  later  Mero 
vingians  and  early  Carolingians. 

SECTION  VI.      COLLAPSING  EMPIRE  AND  RISING  PAPACY 

Charlemagne's  great  power  was  personal.  Scarcely  had  he 
died  when  the  rapid  decline  of  his  empire  began.  His  son  and 
successor,  Louis  the  Pious  (814-840),  was  of  excellent  personal 
character,  but  wholly  unequal  to  the  task  left  by  Charlemagne, 
or  even  to  the  control  of  his  own  sons,  who  plotted  against  him 
and  quarrelled  with  one  another.  After  his  death  they  divided 
the  empire  between  them  by  the  Treaty  of  Verdun  in  843.  To 
Lothair  (843-855)  came  Prankish  Italy  and  a  strip  of  territory 
including  the  valley  of  the  Rhone  and  the  region:  lying  immedi 
ately  west  of  the  Rhine,  together  with  the  imperial  title.  To 


210  THE  COLLAPSE  OF  THE  EMPIRE 

Louis  (843-875)  was  given  the  region  east  of  the  Rhine,  whence 
he  acquired  the  nickname,  "  the  German."  To  Charles  the  Bald 
(843-877)  came  most  of  modern  France  and  ultimately  the  im 
perial  crown.  This  Treaty  of  Verdun  is  usually  regarded  as  the 
point  whence  France  and  Germany  go  their  separate  ways. 

These  rulers  proved  utterly  inadequate  for  unity  or  defense. 
France  suffered  grievously  from  attacks  by  the  Scandinavian 
Normans,  who  pushed  up  its  rivers  and  burned  its  towns,  ulti 
mately  (911)  establishing  themselves  permanently  in  Nor 
mandy.  Italy  was  a  prey  to  Saracen  raids,  in  one  of  which 
(841)  St.  Peter's  itself,  in  Rome,  was  plundered.  A  little  later, 
with  the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century,  the  raids  of  the  Hun 
garians  brought  devastation  to  Germany  and  Italy.  Under 
these  circumstances,  when  national  unity  or  defense  was  im 
possible,  feudalism  developed  with  great  rapidity.  Its  roots 
run  back  to  the  declining  days  of  the  Roman  Empire,  but  with 
the  death  of  Charlemagne  it  was  given  great  impetus.  It  was 
intensely  divisive,  substituting  for  any  strong  central  govern 
ment  many  local  seats  of  authority,  jealous  one  of  another  and 
engaged  in  constant  struggle.  Churches  and  monasteries  be 
came  largely  the  prey  of  local  nobles,  or  defended  their  rights 
with  difficulty  as  parts  of  the  feudal  system.  This  social  and 
political  form  of  organization  was  to  dominate  Europe  till  the 
thirteenth  century,  and  largely  to  make  possible  the  growth  of 
the  mediaeval  papacy. 

The  impulse  given  to  learning  by  Charlemagne  did  not  imme 
diately  die.  At  the  court  of  Charles  the  Bald,  John  Scotus 
(?-877?),  to  whom  the  name  Erigena  was  much  later  added, 
held  somewhat  the  same  position  that  Alcuin  had  occupied  un 
der  Charlemagne.  He  translated  the  much  admired  writings  of 
the  Pseudo-Dionysius  (ante,  p.  171),  and  developed  his  own  Neo- 
Platonic  philosophy,  which  his  age  was  too  ignorant  to  judge 
heretical  or  orthodox.  In  Germany,  Hrabanus  Maurus  (776  ?- 
856),  abbot  of  Fulda  and  archbishop  of  Mainz,  a  pupil  of  Alcuin, 
attained  a  deserved  reputation  as  a  teacher,  commentator  on 
the  Scriptures,  furtherer  of  clerical  education  and  author  of 
what  was  well-nigh  an  encyclopaedia.  In  Hincmar  (805?-882), 
archbishop  of  Rheims,  France  possessed  not  only  a  prelate  of 
great  assertiveness  and  influence,  but  a  theological  controversial 
ist  of  decided  gift. 

The  renewed   study   of  Augustine   which   this   intellectual 


DOCTRINAL  CONTROVERSIES  211 

revival  effected  led  to  two  doctrinal  controversies.  The  first 
was  regarding  the  nature  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Supper. 
About  831  Paschasius  Iladbertus,  a  monk  of  the  monastery  of 
Corbie,  near  Amiens,  of  Remarkable  learning  in  Greek  as  well  as 
in  Latin  theology,  set  forth  the  first  thoroughgoing  treatise 
on  the  Lord's  Supper,  De  corpore  et  sanguine  Domini.  In  it 
he  taught  with  Augustine,  that  only  those  who  partake  in  faith 
receive  the  virtue  of  the  sacrament,  and  with  the  Greeks,  that 
it  is  the  food  of  immortality;  and  also,  that  by  divine  miracle 
the  substance  is  made  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  That 
was  transubstantiation,  though  the  word  was  not  to  be  coined 
before  the  twelfth  century.  To  Iladbertus,  Hrabanus  Maurus 
replied;  but  a  more  elaborate  answer  was  that  of  a  fellow 
monk  of  Corbie,  Ratramnus,  about  844.  Yet  his  view  agreed 
in  much  with  that  of  Radbertus.  The  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  mysteriously  present;  yet  they  are  not  identical  with 
the  body  that  suffered  on  the  cross.  The  controversy  was  not 
decided  at  the  time,  but  the  future,  in  the  Roman  Church,  was 
with  Radbertus. 

The  second  controversy  was  aroused  by  Gottschalk  (808?- 
868?).  A  monk  of  Fulda,  made  so  by  parental  dedication,  his 
efforts  for  release  from  his  bonds  were  frustrated  by  Hrabanus 
Maurus.  He  then  turned  to  the  study  of  Augustine,  and  his 
hard  fate,  perhaps,  led  him  to  emphasize  a  double  divine  pre 
destination — to  life  or  to  death.  He  was  attacked  by  Hrabanus 
Maurus  and  Hincmar,  but  found  vigorous  defenders.  Con 
demned  as  a  heretic  at  a  synod  in  Mainz  in  848,  he  spent  the 
next  twenty  years  in  monastic  imprisonment,  persecuted  by 
Hincmar,  and  refusing  to  retract.  The  controversy  was  a 
fresh  flaring  up  of  the  old  dispute  between  thoroughgoing 
Augustinianism  and  the  semi-Pelagianism  which  was  the  actual 
theory  of  a  large  portion  of  the  church. 

As  the  collapse  of  Charlemagne's  empire  grew  more  complete, 
however,  these  controversies  and  the  intellectual  life  out  of 
which  they  sprang  faded.  By  900  a  renewed  barbarism  had 
largely  extinguished  the  light  which  had  shone  brightly  a 
century  before.  One  great  exception  to  this  general  condition 
existed.  In  England,  Alfred  the  Great  (871-901?),  distin 
guished  as  the  successful  opponent  of  the  Danish  conquerors, 
in  a  spirit  like  that  of  Charlemagne  gathered  learned  men  about 
him,  and  encouraged  the  education  of  the  clergy. 


212        THE  PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN  DECRETALS 

The  collapsing  empire  of  Charlemagne  led  to  the  rise  of  a 
churchly  party  in  France,  which  despairing  of  help  from  the 
state,  looked  toward  the  papacy  as  the  source  of  unity  and  hope. 
This  party  regarded  with  suspicion  also  any  control  of  the 
church  by  the  sovereigns  or  nobility,  and  it  represented  the 
jealousy  of  the  ordinary  bishops  and  lower  clergy  toward  the 
great  archbishops  with  their  often  arbitrary  assertions  of  au 
thority,  of  whom  Hincmar  was  a  conspicuous  example.  The 
aim  of  the  movement  was  not  the  exaltation  of  the  papacy  for 
its  own  sake;  rather  its  exaltation  as  a  means  of  checking  sec 
ular  control  and  that  of  the  archbishops,  and  of  maintaining 
ecclesiastical  unity.  From  this  circle,  between  847  and  852, 
and  probably  from  Hincmar's  own  region  of  Rheims,  came  one 
of  the  most  remarkable  of  forgeries — the  so-called  Pseudo- 
Isidorian  Decretals — purporting  to  be  collected  by  a  certain 
Isidore  Mercator,  by  whom  Isidore  of  Seville  (ante,  p.  193)  and 
Marius  Mercator  were  doubtless  intended.  It  consisted  of 
decisions  of  Popes  and  councils  from  Clement  of  Rome  in  the 
first  century  to  Gregory  II  in  the  eighth,  part  genuine  and  part 
forged.  The  "Donation  of  Constantine"  (ante,  p.  204)  is 
included.  The  early  Popes  therein  claim  for  themselves  su 
preme  jurisdiction.  All  bishops  may  appeal  directly  to  papal 
authority.  Intervening  archiepiscopal  rights  are  limited,  and 
neither  papacy  nor  bishops  are  subject  to  secular  control.  With 
its  origin  the  papacy  had  nothing  to  do;  but  it  was  to  be  used 
mightily  to  the  furtherance  of  papal  claims.  The  age  was  un 
critical.  It  passed  immediately  as  genuine,  and  was  not  ex 
posed  till  the  Reformation  had  awakened  historical  study. 

With  the  decline  of  imperial  power,  the  independence  of  the 
papacy  rapidly  rose.  The  Popes  showed  themselves  the  strong 
est  men  in  Italy.  Leo  IV  (847-855),  aided  by  south  Italian 
cities,  defeated  the  Saracens  and  surrounded  the  quarter  of 
St.  Peter's  in  Rome  with  a  wall — the  "Leonine  City."  In 
Nicholas  I  (858-867)  the  Roman  see  had  its  ablest  and  most 
assertive  occupant  between  Gregory  the  Great  and  Hildebrand. 
He  sketched  out  a  programme  of  papal  claims,  hardly  surpassed 
later,  but  which  the  papacy  was  to  be  centuries  in  achieving. 
Nicholas  attempted  to  realize  the  ideals  of  Augustine's  City  of 
God.  In  his  thought,  the  church  is  superior  to  all  earthly 
powers,  the  ruler  of  the  whole  church  is  the  Pope,  and  the  bish 
ops  are  his  agents.  These  conceptions  he  was  able  to  make 


PAPACY  ADVANCED  BY  NICHOLAS  I        213 

effective  in  two  notable  cases,  in  which  he  had  also  the  advan 
tage  of  choosing  the  side  on  which  right  lay.  The  first  was 
that  of  Thietberga,  the  injured  wife  of  Lothair  II  of  Lorraine. 
Divorced  that  that  sovereign  might  marry  his  concubine,  Wal- 
drada,  she  appealed  to  Nicholas,  who  declared  void  the  sanc 
tioning  decision  of  a  synod  held  in  Metz,  in  863,  and  excom 
municated  the  archbishops  of  Trier  and  Cologne  who  had 
supported  Lothair.  The  Pope  had  defended  helpless  woman 
hood,  he  none  the  less  humbled  two  of  the  most  powerful 
German  prelates  and  thwarted  a  German  ruler.  In  the  second 
case,  Nicholas  received  the  appeal  of  the  deposed  Bishop 
Rothad  of  Soissons,  who  had  been  removed  by  the  overbearing 
Archbishop  Hincmar  of  Rheims,  and  forced  his  restoration. 
Here  Nicholas  appeared  as  the  protector  of  the  bishops  against 
their  metropolitans  and  the  defender  of  their  right  to  appeal 
to  the  Pope  as  the  final  judge.  In  this  quarrel  the  Pseudo- 
Isidorian  Decretals  were  first  employed  in  Rome. 

In  a  third  case,  Nicholas,  though  having  right  on  his  side, 
was  less  successful.  The  Emperor  in  Constantinople,  Michael 
III,  "  the  Drunkard,"  was  ruled  by  his  uncle,  Bardas,  a  man  of 
unsavory  reputation.  The  patriarch,  Ignatius,  refused  Bardas 
the  sacrament,  and  was  deposed.  In  his  place,  Bardas  pro 
cured  the  appointment  of  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of 
the  later  Greek  world,  Photius  (patriarch  858-867,  878-886), 
then  a  layman.  Ignatius,  thus  injured,  appealed  to  Nicholas, 
who  sent  legates  to  Constantinople.  They  joined  in  approval 
of  Photius.  The  Pope  repudiated  their  action,  and,  in  863,  de 
clared  Photius  deposed.  Photius  now  accused  the  Western 
Church  of  heresy  for  admitting  ihefilioque  clause  to  the  creed, 
fasting  on  Saturdays,  using  milk,  butter,  and  cheese  in  Lent, 
demanding  priestly  celibacy,  and  confining  confirmation  to  the 
bishops.  At  a  synod  under  his  leadership  in  Constantinople, 
in  867,  the  Pope  was  condemned.  Nicholas  failed  in  his 
attempt  to  exercise  his  authority  over  the  Eastern  Church. 
The  ill  feeling  between  East  and  West  was  but  augmented, 
which  was  to  lead,  in  1054,  to  the  complete  separation  of  the 
churches. 

During  this  period  following  the  death  of  Charlemagne  im 
portant  missionary  efforts  were  begun.  Ansgar  (801?-865), 
a  monk  of  Corbie,  entered  Denmark  in  826,  but  was  driven  out 
the  next  year.  In  829  and  830  he  labored  in  Sweden.  In  831 


214  MISSIONS  IN  EUROPE 

he  was  appointed  archbishop  of  the  newly  constituted  see  of 
Hamburg,  with  prospective  missionary  jurisdiction  over  Den 
mark,  Norway,  and  Sweden.  The  destruction  of  Hamburg 
by  the  Danes,  in  845,  resulted  in  Ansgar's  removal  to  Bremen, 
which  was  united  ecclesiastically  with  Hamburg.  Ansgar's 
efforts  were  backed  by  no  Frankish  military  force,  and  his  pa 
tient  labors  accomplished  little.  The  full  Christianization  of 
Scandinavia  was  yet  in  the  future. 

Larger  success  attended  missions  in  the  East.  The  Bulgars, 
originally  a  Turanian  people,  from  eastern  Russia,  had  con 
quered  a  large  territory  in  the  Balkan  region  in  the  seventh 
century,  and,  in  turn,  had  adopted  the  manners  and  speech 
of  their  Slavic  subjects.  Under  their  King,  Boris  (852-884), 
Christianity  was  introduced,  Boris  being  baptized  in  864.  For 
some  time  undecided  between  Constantinople  and  Rome,  Boris 
finally  chose  spiritual  allegiance  to  the  former,  since  the  pa 
triarch  of  Constantinople  was  willing  to  recognize  a  self- 
governing  Bulgarian  church.  This  adhesion  was  of  immense 
consequence  in  determining  the  future  growth  of  the  Greek 
Church  in  Eastern  Europe.  The  most  celebrated  missionaries 
among  the  Slavs  were,  however,  the  brothers  Cyril  ( ?-869)  and 
Methodius  (?-885).  Natives  of  Thessalonica,  they  had  at 
tained  high  position  in  the  Eastern  empire.  On  the  request  of 
Rostislav,  duke  of  Moravia,  the  Eastern  Emperor,  Michael  III, 
sent  the  brothers  thither  in  864.  There  they  labored  with  great 
success.  A  struggle  of  several  years  between  the  papacy  and 
Constantinople  for  possession  of  this  new-won  territory  resulted 
in  the  ultimate  victory  of  Rome.  The  use  of  a  Slavic  liturgy 
was  permitted  by  Pope  John  VIII  (872-882),  though  soon  with 
drawn,  but  from  this  source  its  worship  came  ultimately  to  the 
Russian  church.  From  Moravia,  Christianity  in  its  Roman 
form  came  to  Bohemia  about  the  close  of  the  ninth  century. 

SECTION  VII.      PAPAL  DECLINE  AND  RENEWAL  BY  THE  REVIVED 

EMPIRE 

It  may  seem  strange  that  the  papacy  which  showed  such 
power  under  Nicholas  I  should  within  twenty-five  years  of  his 
death  have  fallen  into  its  lowest  degradation.  The  explanation 
is  the  growing  anarchy  of  the  times.  Up  to  a  certain  point 
the  collapse  of  the  empire  aided  the  development  of  papal 


RAPID  DECLINE  OF  THE  PAPACY  215 

authority;  that  passed,  the  papacy  became  the  sport  of  the 
Italian  nobles  and  ultimately  of  whatever  faction  was  in  con 
trol  of  Rome,  since  the  Pope  was  chosen  by  the  clergy  and 
people  of  the  city.  The  papacy  could  now  appeal  for  aid  to  no 
strong  outside  political  power  as  Zacharias  had  to  Pippin  against 
the  Lombards. 

At  the  close  of  the  ninth  century  the  papacy  was  involved 
in  the  quarrels  for  the  possession  of  Italy.  Stephen  V  (885- 
891)  was  overborne  by  Guido,  duke  of  Spoleto,  and  compelled 
to  grant  him  the  empty  imperial  title.  Formosus  (891-896) 
was  similarly  dependent,  and  crowned  Guido's  son,  Lambert, 
Emperor  in  892.  From  this  situation  Formosus  sought  relief 
in  893  by  calling  in  the  aid  of  Arnulf,  whom  the  Germans  had 
chosen  King  in  887.  In  895  Arnulf  captured  Rome,  and  was 
crowned  Emperor  by  Formosus  the  next  year.  A  few  months 
later  Lambert  was  in  turn  master  of  Rome,  and  his  partisan, 
Stephen  VI  (896-897),  had  the  remains  of  the  lately  deceased 
Formosus  disinterred,  condemned  in  a  synod,  and  treated 
with  extreme  indignity.  A  riot,  however,  thrust  Stephen  VI 
into  prison,  where  he  was  strangled. 

Popes  now  followed  one  another  in  rapid  succession,  as  the 
various  factions  controlled  Rome.  Between  the  death  of 
Stephen  VI  (897)  and  the  accession  of  John  XII  (955)  no  less 
than  seventeen  occupied  the  papal  throne.  The  controlling 
influences  in  the  opening  years  of  the  tenth  century  were  those 
of  the  Roman  noble  Theophylact,  and  his  notorious  daugh 
ters,  Marozia  and  Theodora.  The  Popes  were  their  creatures. 
From  932  to  his  death  in  954  Rome  was  controlled  by  Marozia's 
son  Alberic,  a  man  of  strength,  ability,  and  character,  who  did 
much  for  churchly  reforms  in  Rome,  but  nevertheless  secured 
the  appointment  of  his  partisans  as  Popes.  On  his  death  he 
was  succeeded  as  temporal  ruler  of  Rome  by  his  son  Octavian, 
who  had  few  of  the  father's  rough  virtues.  Though  without 
moral  fitness  for  the  office,  Octavian  secured  his  own  election 
as  Pope  in  955,  choosing  as  his  name  in  this  capacity  John  XII 
(955-964),  being  one  of  the  earliest  Popes  to  take  a  new  name 
on  election.  He  altered  the  whole  Roman  situation  and  in 
troduced  a  new  chapter  in  the  history  of  the  papacy,  by  calling 
for  aid  upon  the  able  German  sovereign,  Otto  I,  against  the 
threatening  power  of  Berengar  II,  who  had  gained  control  of 
a  large  part  of  Italy. 


210         THE   REGENERATION  OF  GERMANY 

The  line  of  Charlemagne  came  to  an  end  in  Germany,  in 
911,  with  the  death  of  Louis  the  Child.  With  the  disintegra 
tion  of  the  Carolingian  empire  and  the  growth  of  feudalism, 
Germany  threatened  to  fall  into  its  tribal  divisions,  Bavaria, 
Swabia,  Saxony,  Franconia,  and  Lorraine.  The  most  power 
ful  men  were  the  tribal  dukes.  The  necessities  of  defense  from 
the  Northmen  and  Hungarians  forced  a  degree  of  unity,  which 
was  aided  by  the  jealousy  felt  by  the  bishops  of  the  growing 
power  of  the  secular  nobility.  In  911  the  German  nobles  and 
great  clergy,  therefore,  chose  Conrad,  duke  of  Franconia,  as 
King  (911-918).  He  proved  inadequate,  and  in  919  Henry 
the  Fowler,  duke  of  Saxony,  was  elected  his  successor  (919-936). 
His  ability  was  equal  to  the  situation.  Though  having  little 
power,  save  in  Saxony,  he  secured  peace  from  the  other  dukes, 
fortified  his  own  territories,  drove  back  the  Danes,  subdued  the 
Slavs  east  of  the  Elbe,  and  finally,  in  933,  defeated  the  Hun 
garian  invaders.  The  worst  perils  of  Germany  had  been  re 
moved,  and  the  foundations  of  a  strong  monarchy  laid,  when 
he  was  succeeded  as  King  by  his  even  abler  son,  Otto  I  (936- 
973). 

Otto's  first  work  was  the  consolidation  of  his  kingdom.  He 
made  the  semi-independent  dukes  effectively  his  vassals.  In 
this  work  he  used  above  all  the  aid  of  the  bishops  and  great 
abbots.  They  controlled  large  territories  of  Germany,  and  by 
filling  these  posts  with  his  adherents,  their  forces,  coupled  with 
his  own,  were  sufficient  to  enable  Otto  to  control  any  hostile 
combination  of  lay  nobles.  He  named  the  bishops  and  abbots, 
and  under  him  they  became,  as  they  were  to  continue  to  the 
Napoleonic  wars,  lay  rulers  as  well  as  spiritual  prelates.  The 
peculiar  constitution  of  Germany  thus  arose,  by  which  the 
imperial  power  was  based  on  control  of  ecclesiastical  appoint 
ments — a  situation  which  was  to  lead  to  the  investiture  struggle 
with  the  papacy  in  the  next  century.  As  Otto  extended  his 
power  he  founded  new  bishoprics  on  the  borders  of  his  king 
dom,  partly  political  and  partly  missionary  in  aim,  as  Bran 
denburg  and  Havelberg  among  the  Slavs,  and  Schleswig,  Ripen, 
and  Aarhus  for  the  Danes.  He  also  established  the  arch 
bishopric  of  Magdeburg. 

Had  Otto  confined  his  work  to  Germany  it  would  have  been 
for  the  advantage  of  that  land,  and  for  the  permanent  upbuild 
ing  of  a  strong  central  monarchy.  He  was,  however,  attracted 


THE  HOLY  ROMAN  EMPIRE  217 

by  Italy,  and  established  relations  there  of  the  utmost  historic 
importance,  but  which  were  destined  to  dissipate  the  strength 
of  Germany  for  centuries.  A  first  invasion  in  951  made  him 
master  of  northern  Italy.  Rebellion  at  home  (953)  and  a  great 
campaign  against  the  Hungarians  (955)  interrupted  his  Italian 
enterprise ;  but  in  961  he  once  more  invaded  Italy,  invited  by 
Pope  John  XII,  then  hard  pressed  by  Berengar  II  (ante,  p.  215). 
On  February  2,  962,  Otto  was  crowned  in  Rome  by  John  XII 
as  Emperor — an  event  which,  though  in  theory  continuing  the 
succession  of  the  Roman  Emperors  from  Augustus  and  Charle 
magne,  was  the  inauguration  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire, 
which  was  to  continue  in  name  till  1806.  Theoretically,  the 
Emperor  was  the  head  of  secular  Christendom,  so  constituted 
with  the  approval  of  the  church  expressed  by  coronation  by 
the  papacy.  Practically,  he  was  a  more  or  less  powerful  Ger 
man  ruler,  with  Italian  possessions,  on  varying  terms  with  the 
Popes. 

John  XII  soon  tired  of  Otto's  practical  control,  and  plotted 
against  him.  Otto,  of  strong  religious  feeling,  to  whom  such 
a  Pope  was  an  offense,  doubtless  was  also  moved  by  a  desire 
to  strengthen  his  hold  on  the  German  bishops  by  securing  a 
more  worthy  and  compliant  head  of  the  church.  In  963  Otto 
compelled  the  Roman  people  to  swear  to  choose  no  Pope  with 
out  his  consent,  caused  John  XII  to  be  deposed,  and  brought 
about  the  choice  of  Leo  VIII  (963-965).  The  new  Pope  stood 
solely  by  imperial  support.  On  Otto's  departure  John  XII  re 
sumed  his  papacy,  and  on  John's  death  the  Roman  factions 
chose  Benedict  V.  Once  more  Otto  returned,  forced  Benedict 
into  exile,  restored  Leo  VIII,  and  after  Leo's  speedy  demise, 
caused  the  choice  of  John  XIII  (965-972).  Otto  had  rescued 
the  papacy,  for  the  time  being,  from  the  Roman  nobles,  but  at 
the  cost  of  subserviency  to  himself. 

Otto's  son  and  successor,  Otto  II  (973-983),  pursued  substan 
tially  the  same  policy  at  home,  and  regarding  the  papacy,  as 
his  father,  though  with  a  weaker  hand.  His  son,  Otto  III 
(983-1002),  went  further.  The  Roman  nobles  had  once  more 
controlled  the  papacy  in  his  minority,  but  in  996  he  entered 
Rome,  put  them  down,  and  caused  his  cousin  Bruno  to  be 
made  Pope  as  Gregory  V  (996-999)— the  first  German  to  hold 
the  papal  office.  After  Gregory's  decease  Otto  III  placed  on 
the  papal  throne  his  tutor,  Gerbert,  archbishop  of  Rheims, 


218         THE  EMPERORS  AND  THE  PAPACY 

as  Silvester  II  (999-1003)— the  first  French  Pope,  and  the  most 
learned  man  of  the  age. 

The  death  of  Otto  III  ended  the  direct  line  of  Otto  I,  and  the 
throne  was  secured  by  Henry  II  (1002-1024),  duke  of  Bavaria 
and  great-grandson  of  Henry  the  Fowler.  A  man  filled  with 
sincere  desire  to  improve  the  state  of  the  church,  he  yet  felt  him 
self  forced  by  the  difficulties  in  securing  and  maintaining  his  po 
sition  to  exercise  strict  control  over  ecclesiastical  appointments. 
His  hands  were  too  fully  tied  by  German  affairs  to  interfere 
effectually  in  Rome.  There  the  counts  of  Tusculum  gained 
control  of  the  papacy,  and  secured  the  appointment  of  Benedict 
VIII  (1012-1024),  with  whom  Henry  stood  on  good  terms,  and 
by  whom  he  was  crowned.  Henry  even  persuaded  the  unspiri- 
tual  Benedict  VIII  at  a  synod  in  Pavia  in  1022,  at  which  both 
Pope  and  Emperor  were  present,  to  renew  the  prohibition  of 
priestly  marriage  and  favor  other  measures  which  the  age  re 
garded  as  reforms. 

With  the  death  of  Henry  II  the  direct  line  was  once  more 
extinct,  and  the  imperial  throne  was  secured  by  a  Franconian 
count,  Conrad  II  (1024-1039),  one  of  the  ablest  of  German 
rulers,  under  whom  the  empire  gained  great  strength.  His 
thoughts  were  political,  however,  and  political  considerations 
determined  his  ecclesiastical  appointments.  With  Rome  he 
did  not  interfere.  There  the  Tusculan  party  secured  the 
papacy  for  Benedict  VIII's  brother,  John  XIX  (1024-1032), 
and  on  his  death  for  his  twelve-year-old  nephew,  Benedict  IX 
(1033-1048),  both  unworthy,  and  the  latter  one  of  the  worst 
occupants  of  the  papal  throne.  An  intolerable  situation  arose 
at  Rome,  which  was  ended  (see  p.  221)  by  Conrad's  able  and 
far  more  religious  son,  Henry  III,  Emperor  from  1039  to  1056. 

SECTION  VIII.      REFORM  MOVEMENTS 

Charlemagne  himself  valued  monasticism  more  for  its  edu 
cational  and  cultural  work  than  for  its  ascetic  ideals.  Those 
ideals  appealed,  however,  in  Charlemagne's  reign  to  a  soldier- 
nobleman  of  southern  France,  Witiza,  or  as  he  was  soon  known, 
Benedict  (750?-821)  called  of  Aniane,  from  the  monastery 
founded  by  him  in  779.  Benedict's  aim  was  to  secure  every 
where  the  full  ascetic  observation  of  the  "Rule"  of  Benedict 
of  Nursia  (ante,  p.  139).  The  educational  or  industrial  side  of 


REFORM  MOVEMENTS.    CLUNY.  219 

monasticism  appealed  little  to  him.  He  would  raise  monasti- 
cism  to  greater  activity  in  worship,  contemplation,  and  self- 
denial.  Under  Louis  the  Pious  Benedict  became  that  Em 
peror's  chief  monastic  adviser,  and  by  imperial  order,  in  816 
and  817,  Benedict  of  Aniane's  interpretation  of  the  elder  Bene 
dict's  Rule  was  made  binding  on  all  monasteries  of  the  empire. 
Undoubtedly  a  very  considerable  improvement  in  their  condi 
tion  resulted.  Most  of  these  benefits  were  lost,  however,  in  the 
collapse  of  the  empire,  in  which  monasticism  shared  in  the 
common  fall. 

The  misery  of  the  times  itself  had  the  effect  of  turning  men's 
minds  from  the  world,  and  of  magnifying  the  ascetic  ideal. 
By  the  early  years  of  the  tenth  century  a  real  ascetic  revival 
of  religion  was  beginning  that  was  to  grow  in  strength  for  more 
than  two  centuries.  Its  first  conspicuous  illustration  was  the 
foundation  in  910  by  Duke  William  the  Pious,  of  Aquitaine, 
of  the  monastery  of  Cluny,  not  far  from  Macon  in  eastern 
France.1  Cluny  was  to  be  free  from  all  episcopal  or  worldly 
jurisdiction,  self-governing,  but  under  the  protection  of  the 
Pope.  Its  lands  were  to  be  secure  from  all  invasion  or  seculari 
zation,  and  its  rule  that  of  Benedict,  interpreted  with  great 
ascetic  strictness.  Cluny  was  governed  by  a  series  of  abbots 
of  remarkable  character  and  ability.  Under  the  first  and 
second  of  these,  Berno  (910-927)  and  Odo  (927-942),  it  had 
many  imitators,  through  their  energetic  work.  Even  the 
mother  Benedictine  monastery  of  Monte  Cassino,  in  Italy, 
was  reformed  on  Cluny  lines,  and,  favored  by  Alberic,  a  mon 
astery,  St.  Mary  on  the  Aventine  hill,  was  founded  which  rep 
resented  Cluny  ideas  in  Rome.  By  the  death  of  Odo  the  Cluny 
movement  was  wide-spread  in  France  and  Italy. 

It  was  no  part  of  the  original  purpose  of  Cluny  to  bring 
other  monasteries  into  dependence  on  it,  or  to  develop  far- 
reaching  churchly  political  plans.  Its  aim  was  a  monastic 
reformation  by  example  and  influence.  Yet  even  at  the 
death  of  the  first  abbot  five  or  six  monasteries  were  under  the 
control  of  the  abbot  of  Cluny.  Under  the  fifth  abbot,  Odilo 
(994-1048),  however,  Cluny  became  the  head  of  a  "congrega 
tion,"  since  he  brought  all  monasteries  founded  or  reformed  by 
Cluny  into  dependence  on  the  mother  house,  their  heads  being 
appointed  by  and  responsible  to  the  abbot  of  Cluny  himself. 
1  Henderson,  Select  Historical  Documents,  pp.  329-333. 


% 


220  AIMS  OF  THE  CLUNY  REFORMS 

This  was  new  in  monasticism,  and  it  made  Cluny  practically 
an  order,  under  a  single  head,  with  all  the  strength  and  influ 
ence  that  such  a  constitution  implies.  It  now  came  to  have 
a  force  comparable  with  that  of  the  Dominicans  or  Jesuits  of 
later  times.  With  this  growth  came  an  enlargement  of  the 
reformatory  aims  of  the  Cluny  movement.  An  illustration  is 
the  "Truce  of  God."  Though  not  originated  by  Cluny,  it 
was  taken  up  and  greatly  furthered  by  Abbot  Odilo  from  1040 
onward.  Its  aim  was  to  limit  the  constant  petty  wars  between 
nobles  by  prescribing  a  closed  season  in  memory  of  Christ's 
passion,  from  Wednesday  evening  till  Monday  morning,  during 
which  acts  of  violence  should  be  visited  with  severe  ecclesias 
tical  punishments.  Its  purpose  was  excellent;  its  success  but 
partial. 

As  the  Cluny  movement  grew  it  won  the  support  of  the 
clergy,  and  became  an  effort,  not  for  the  reform  of  monasticism, 
as  at  first,  but  for  a  wide-reaching  betterment  of  clerical  life. 
By  the  first  half  of  the  eleventh  century  the  Cluny  party,  as  a 
whole,  stood  in  opposition  to  "Simony"1  and  "Nicolaitanism."2 
By  the  former  was  understood  any  giving  or  reception  of  a 
clerical  office  for  money  payment  or  other  sordid  consideration. 
By  the  latter,  any  breach  of  clerical  celibacy,  whether  by 
marriage  or  concubinage.  These  reformers  desired  a  worthy 
clergy,  appointed  for  spiritual  reasons,  as  the  age  understood 
worthiness.  While  many  of  the  Cluny  party,  and  even  abbots 
of  Cluny  itself,  had  apparently  no  criticism  of  royal  ecclesias 
tical  appointments,  if  made  from  spiritual  motives,  by  the 
middle  of  the  eleventh  century  a  large  section  was  viewing 
any  investiture  by  a  layman  as  simony,  and  had  as  its  reforma 
tory  ideal  a  papacy  strong  enough  to  take  from  the  Kings  and 
princes  what  it  deemed  their  usurped  powers  of  clerical  designa 
tion.  This  was  the  section  that  was  to  support  Hildebrand  in 
his  great  contest. 

Elsewhere  than  in  the  Cluny  movement  ascetic  reform  was 
characteristic  of  the  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries.  In  Lor 
raine  and  Flanders  a  monastic  revival  of  large  proportions  was 
instituted  by  Gerhard,  abbot  of  Brogne  (?-959).  In  Italy, 
Romuald  of  Ravenna  (950?- 1027)  organized  settlements  of 
hermits,  called  "deserts,"  in  which  the  strictest  asceticism  was 
practised,  and  from  which  missionaries  and  preachers  went 
1  Acts  818-24.  2  Rev.  2".  14-  15. 


HENRY   III   RESCUES  THE  PAPACY          221 

forth.  The  most  famous  "desert,"  which  still  exists  and  gave 
its  name  to  the  movement,  is  that  of  Camaldoli,  near  Arezzo. 
Even  more  famous  was  Peter  Damiani  (1007?-1072),  likewise 
of  Ravenna,  a  fiery  supporter  of  monastic  reform,  and  oppo 
nent  of  simoriy  and  clerical  marriage,  who  was,  for  a  time, 
cardinal  bishop  of  Ostia,  and  a  leading  ecclesiastical  figure  in 
Italy  in  the  advancement  of  Hildebrandian  ideas,  preceding 
Hildebrand's  papacy. 

It  is  evident  that  before  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century 
a  strong  movement  for  churchly  reform  was  making  itself 
felt.  Henry  II  had,  in  large  measure,  sympathized  with  it 
(ante,  p.  218).  Henry  III  (1039-1056)  was  even  more  under 
its  influence.  Abbot  Hugh  of  Cluny  (1049-1109)  was  a  close 
friend  of  that  Emperor,  while  the  Empress,  Agnes,  from  Aqui- 
taine,  had  been  brought  up  in  heartiest  sympathy  with  the 
Cluny  party,  of  which  her  father  had  been  a  devoted  adherent. 
Henry  III  was  personally  of  a  religious  nature,  and  though  he 
had  no  hesitation  in  controlling  ecclesiastical  appointments 
for  political  reasons  as  fully  as  his  father,  Conrad  II,  he  would 
take  no  money  for  so  doing,  denounced  simony,  and  appointed 
bishops  of  high  character  and  reformatory  zeal. 

The  situation  in  Rome  demanded  Henry  Ill's  interference, 
for  it  had  now  become  an  intolerable  scandal.  Benedict  IX, 
placed  on  the  throne  by  the  Tusculan  party,  had  proved  so 
unworthy  that  its  rivals,  the  nobles  of  the  Crescenzio  faction, 
were  able  to  drive  him  out  of  Rome,  in  1044,  and  install  their 
representative  as  Silvester  III  in  his  stead.  Benedict,  however, 
was  soon  back  in  partial  possession  of  the  city,  and  now,  tiring 
temporarily  of  his  high  office,  and  probably  planning  marriage, 
he  sold  it  in  1045  for  a  price  variously  stated  as  one  or  two  thou 
sand  pounds  of  silver.  The  purchaser  was  a  Roman  archpriest 
of  good  repute  for  piety,  John  Gratian,  who  took  the  name 
Gregory  VI.  Apparently  the  purchase  was  known  to  few. 
Gregory  was  welcomed  at  first  by  reformers  like  Peter  Damiani. 
The  scandal  soon  became  public  property.  Benedict  IX  re 
fused  to  lay  down  the  papacy,  and  there  were  now  three  Popes 
in  Rome,  each  in  possession  of  one  of  the  principal  churches, 
and  each  denouncing  the  other  two.  Henry  III  now  inter 
fered.  At  a  synod  held  by  him  in  Sutri  in  December,  1040, 
Silvester  III  was  deposed,  and  Gregory  VI  compelled  to  resign 
and  banished  to  Germany.  A  few  days  later,  a  synod  in  Rome, 


222    THE  REFORM  PARTY  SECURES  THE  PAPACY 

under  imperial  supervision,  deposed  Benedict  IX.  Henry  III 
immediately  nominated  and  the  overawed  clergy  and  people 
of  the  city  elected  a  German,  Suidger,  bishop  of  Bamberg,  as 
Clement  II  (1046-1047).  Henry  III  had  reached  the  high- 
water  mark  of  imperial  control  over  the  papacy.  So  grateful 
did  its  rescue  from  previous  degradation  appear  that  the  reform 
party  did  not  at  first  seriously  criticise  this  imperial  domina 
tion  ;  but  it  could  not  long  go  on  without  raising  the  question 
of  the  independence  of  the  church.  The  very  thoroughness  of 
Henry's  work  soon  roused  opposition. 

Henry  III  had  repeated  occasion  to  show  his  control  of  the 
papal  office.  Clement  II  soon  died,  and  Henry  caused  another 
bishop  of  his  empire  to  be  placed  on  the  papal  throne  as  Dam- 
asus  II.  The  new  Pope  survived  but  a  few  months.  Henry 
now  appointed  to  the  vacant  see  his  cousin  Bruno,  bishop 
of  Toul,  a  thoroughgoing  reformer,  in  full  sympathy  with 
Cluny,  who  now  journeyed  to  Rome  as  a  pilgrim,  and  after 
merely  formal  canonical  election  by  the  clergy  and  people  of 
the  city — for  the  Emperor's  act  was  determinative — took  the 
title  of  Leo  IX  (1049-1054). 

SECTION  IX.   THE  REFORM  PARTY  SECURES  THE  PAPACY 

Leo  IX  set  himself  vigorously  to  the  task  of  reform.  His 
most  effective  measure  was  a  great  alteration  wrought  in  the 
composition  of  the  Pope's  immediate  advisers — the  cardinals. 
The  name,  cardinal,  had  originally  been  employed  to  indicate 
a  clergyman  permanently  attached  to  an  ecclesiastical  posi 
tion.  By  the  time  of  Gregory  I  (590-604),  its  use  in  Rome  was, 
however,  becoming  technical.  From  an  uncertain  epoch,  but 
earlier  than  the  conversion  of  Constantine,  in  each  district 
of  Rome  a  particular  church  was  deemed,  or  designated,  the 
most  important,  originally  as  the  exclusive  place  for  baptisms 
probably.  These  churches  were  known  as  "title"  churches, 
and  their  presbyters  or  head  presbyters  were  the  "cardinal" 
or  leading  priests  of  Rome.  In  a  similar  way,  the  heads  of 
the  charity  districts  into  which  Rome  was  divided  in  the  third 
century  were  known  as  the  "cardinal"  or  leading  deacons. 
At  a  later  period,  but  certainly  by  the  eighth  century,  the 
bishops  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Rome,  the  "suburbi- 
carian"  or  suburban  bishops,  were  called  the  "cardinal  bish- 


THE  REFORM  PARTY  SECURES  THE  PAPACY    223 

ops/'  This  division  of  the  college  of  cardinals  into  "cardinal 
bishops,"  "cardinal  priests,"  and  "cardinal  deacons"  persists 
to  the  present  day.  As  the  leading  clergy  of  Rome  and  vicinity, 
they  were,  long  before  the  name  "cardinal"  became  exclusively 
or  even  primarily  attached  to  them,  the  Pope's  chief  aids  and 
advisers. 

On  attaining  the  papacy  Leo  IX  found  the  cardinalate  filled 
with  Romans,  and  so  far  as  they  were  representative  of  the 
noble  factions  which  had  long  controlled  the  papacy  before 
Henry  Ill's  intervention,  with  men  unsympathetic  with 
reform.  Leo  IX  appointed  to  several  of  these  high  places  men 
of  reformatory  zeal  from  other  parts  of  Western  Christendom. 
He  thus  largely  changed  the  sympathies  of  the  cardinalate, 
surrounded  himself  with  trusted  assistants,  and  in  considerable 
measure  rendered  the  cardinalate  thenceforth  representative 
of  the  Western  Church  as  a  whole  and  not  simply  of  the  local 
Roman  community.  It  was  a  step  of  far-reaching  consequence. 
Three  of  these  appointments  were  of  special  significance. 
Humbert,  a  monk  of  Lorraine,  was  made  cardinal  bishop,  and 
to  his  death  in  1061  was  to  be  a  leading  opponent  of  lay  inves 
titure  and  a  force  in  papal  politics.  Hugh  the  White,  a  monk 
from  the  vicinity  of  Toul,  who  was  to  live  till  after  1098,  be 
came  a  cardinal  priest,  was  long  to  be  a  supporter  of  reform, 
only  to  become  for  the  last  twenty  years  of  his  life  the  most 
embittered  of  opponents  of  Hildebrand  and  his  successors. 
Finally,  Hildebrand  himself,  who  had  accompanied  Leo  IX 
from  Germany,  was  made  a  sub-deacon,  charged  with  the  finan 
cial  administration,  in  some  considerable  measure,  of  the  Ro 
man  see.  Leo  IX  appointed  other  men  of  power  and  reforma 
tory  zeal  to  important,  if  less  prominent,  posts  in  Rome  and  its 
vicinity. 

Hildebrand,  who  now  came  into  association  with  the  car 
dinalate,  is  the  most  remarkable  personality  in  mediaeval 
papal  history.  A  man  of  diminutive  stature  and  unimpressive 
appearance,  his  power  of  intellect,  firmness  of  will,  and  limit- 
lessness  of  design  made  him  the  outstanding  figure  of  his  age. 
Born  in  humble  circumstances  in  Tuscany,  not  far  from  the 
year  1020,  he  was  educated  in  the  Cluny  monastery  of  St. 
Mary  on  the  Aventine  in  Rome,  and  early  inspired  with  the 
most  radical  of  reformatory  ideals.  He  accompanied  Gregory 
VI  to  Germany  on  that  unlucky  Pope's  banishment  (ante. 


224        LEO  IX.    EAST  AND  WEST  DIVIDED 

p.  221),  and  thence  returned  to  Rome  with  Leo  IX.  Probably 
he  was  already  a  monk,  but  whether  he  was  ever  in  Cluny  it 
self  is  doubtful.  He  was,  however,  still  a  young  man,  and  to 
ascribe  to  him  the  leading  influence  under  the  vigorous  Leo  IX 
is  an  error.  Leo  was  rather  his  teacher. 

Leo  IX  entered  vigorously  on  the  work  of  reform.  He  stood 
in  cordial  relations  with  its  chief  leaders,  Hugo,  abbot  of  Cluny, 
Peter  Damiani,  and  Frederick  of  Lorraine.  He  made  exten 
sive  journeys  to  Germany  and  France,  holding  synods  and 
enforcing  papal  authority.  At  his  first  Easter  synod  in  Rome, 
in  1049,  he  condemned  simony  and  priestly  marriage  in  the 
severest  terms.  A  synod  held  under  his  presidency  in  Rheims 
the  same  year  affirmed  the  principle  of  canonical  election, 
"no  one  shall  be  promoted  to  ecclesiastical  rulership  without 
the  choice  of  the  clergy  and  people."  By  these  journeys  and 
assemblies  the  influence  of  the  papacy  was  greatly  raised. 

In  his  relations  with  southern  Italy  and  with  Constantinople 
Leo  IX  was  less  fortunate.  The  advancing  claims  of  the  Nor 
mans,  who  since  1016  had  been  gradually  conquering  the  lower 
part  of  the  peninsula,  were  opposed  by  the  Pope,  who  asserted 
possession  for  the  papacy.  Papal  interference  with  the 
churches,  especially  of  Sicily,  which  still  paid  allegiance  to 
Constantinople,  aroused  the  assertive  patriarch  of  that  city, 
Michael  Cerularius  (1043-1058),  who  now,  in  conjunction  with 
Leo,  the  metropolitan  of  Bulgaria,  closed  the  churches  of  the 
Latin  rite  in  their  regions  and  attacked  the  Latin  Church  in  a 
letter  written  by  the  latter  urging  the  old  charges  of  Photius 
(ante,  p.  213),  and  adding  a  condemnation  of  the  use  of  un 
leavened  bread  in  the  Lord's  Supper — a  custom  which  had  be 
come  common  in  the  West  in  the  ninth  century.  Leo  IX 
replied  by  sending  Cardinal  Humbert  and  Frederick  of  Lor 
raine,  the  papal  chancellor,  to  Constantinople  in  1054,  by  whom 
an  excommunication  of  Michael  Cerularius  and  all  his  followers 
was  laid  on  the  high  altar  of  St.  Sofia.  This  act  has  been 
usually  regarded  as  the  formal  separation  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  Churches.  In  1053  Leo's  forces  were  defeated  and  he 
himself  captured  by  the  Normans.  He  did  not  long  survive 
this  catastrophe,  dying  in  1054. 

On  the  death  of  Leo  IX,  Henry  III  appointed  another  Ger 
man,  Bishop  Gebhard  of  Eichstadt,  as  Pope.  He  took  the 
title  of  Victor  II  (1055-1057).  Though  friendly  to  the  reform 


THE  PAPACY  SEEKS  INDEPENDENCE        225 

party,  Victor  II  was  a  devoted  admirer  of  his  imperial  patron, 
and  on  the  unexpected  death  of  the  great  Emperor  in  1156, 
did  much  to  secure  the  quiet  succession  of  Henry  Ill's  son 
Henry  IV,  then  a  boy  of  six,  under  the  regency  of  the  Empress 
Mother,  Agnesj.  Less  than  a  year  later  Victor  II  died. 


SECTION   X.      THE   PAPACY   BREAKS   WITH  THE   EMPIRE 

Henry  Ill's  dominance  was  undoubtedly  displeasing  to  the 
more  radical  reformers,  who  had  endured  it  partly  of  necessity, 
since  it  was  not  apparent  how  the  papacy  could  otherwise  be 
freed  from  the  control  of  the  Roman  nobles,  and  partly  because 
of  Henry's  sympathy  with  many  features  of  the  reform  move 
ment.  Henry  himself  had  been  so  firmly  intrenched  in  his 
control  of  the  German  church,  and  of  the  papacy  itself,  that 
the  logical  consequences  of  the  reform  movement  appear  not 
to  have  been  clear  to  him.  Now  he  was  gone.  A  weak  re 
gency  had  taken  his  place.  The  time  seemed  ripe  to  the  re 
formers  for  an  advance  which  should  lessen  imperial  control, 
or,  if  possible,  end  it  altogether. 

On  Victor  II 's  death  the  Romans,  led  by  the  reform  clergy, 
chose  Frederick  of  Lorraine  Pope  as  Stephen  IX  (1057-1058) 
without  consulting  the  German  regent.  A  thoroughgoing 
reformer,  the  new  Pope  was  the  brother  of  Duke  Godfrey  of 
Lorraine,  an  enemy  of  the  German  imperial  house,  who  by  his 
marriage  with  the  Countess  Beatrice  of  Tuscany  had  become 
the  strongest  noble  in  northern  Italy.  Under  Stephen,  Cardinal 
Humbert  now  issued  a  programme  for  the  reform  party  in  his 
Three  Books  Against  the  Simoniacs,  in  which  he  declared  all 
lay  appointment  invalid  and,  in  especial,  attacked  lay  investi 
ture,  that  is  the  gift  by  the  Emperor  of  a  ring  and  a  staff  to 
the  elected  bishop  in  token  of  his  induction  into  office.  The 
victory  of  these  principles  would  undermine  the  foundations 
of  the  imperial  power  in  Germany.  Their  strenuous  asser 
tion  could  but  lead  to  a  struggle  of  gigantic  proportions. 
Nevertheless,  Stephen  did  not  dare  push  matters  too  far. 
He,  therefore,  sent  Hildebrand  and  Bishop  Anselm  of  Lucca, 
who  secured  the  approval  of  the  Empress  Agnes  for  his  papacy. 
Scarcely  had  this  been  obtained  when  Stephen  died  in  Flor 
ence. 

Stephen's  death  provoked  a  crisis.    The  Roman  nobles  re- 


226  HILDEBRAND'S  LEADERSHIP 

asserted  their  old  authority  over  the  papacy  and  chose  their 
own  partisan,  Benedict  X,  only  a  week  later.  The  reform 
cardinals  had  to  flee.  Their  cause  seemed  for  the  moment 
lost.  The  situation  was  saved  by  the  firmness  and  political 
skill  of  Hildebrand.  He  secured  the  approval  of  Godfrey  of 
Tuscany  and  of  a  part  of  the  people  of  Rome  for  the  candidacy 
of  Gerhard,  bishop  of  Florence,  a  reformer  and,  like  Godfrey,  a 
native  of  Lorraine.  A  representative  of  this  Roman  minority 
obtained  the  consent  of  the  regent,  Agnes.  Hildebrand  now 
gathered  the  reform  cardinals  in  Siena,  and  Gerhard  was  there 
chosen  as  Nicholas  II  (1058-1061).  The  military  aid  of  God 
frey  of  Tuscany  soon  made  the  new  Pope  master  of  Rome. 
Under  Nicholas  II  the  real  power  was  that  of  Hildebrand,  and 
in  lesser  degree  of  the  cardinals  Humbert  and  Peter  Damiani. 

The  problem  was  to  free  the  papacy  from  the  control  of  the 
Roman  nobles  without  coming  under  the  overlordship  of  the 
Emperor.  Some  physical  support  for  the  papacy  must  be 
found.  The  aid  of  Tuscany  could  be  counted  as  assured. 
Beatrice  and  her  daughter,  Matilda,  were  to  be  indefatigable 
in  assistance.  Yet  Tuscany  was  not  sufficient.  Under  the 
skilful  guidance  of  Hildebrand,  Nicholas  II  entered  into  cordial 
relations  with  the  Normans,  who  had  caused  Leo  IX  so  much 
trouble,  recognized  their  conquests,  and  received  them  as 
vassals  of  the  papacy.  With  like  ability,  intimate  connections 
were  now  established,  largely  through  the  agency  of  Peter 
Damiani  and  Bishop  Anselm  of  Lucca,  with  the  democratic 
party  in  Lombardy  known  as  the  Pataria,  opposed  to  the  anti- 
reformatory  and  imperialistic  higher  clergy  of  that  region. 
Strengthened  by  these  new  alliances,  Nicholas  II  at  the  Roman 
synod  of  1059  expressly  forbad  lay  investiture  under  any  cir 
cumstances. 

The  most  significant  event  of  the  papacy  of  Nicholas  II  was 
the  decree  of  this  Roman  synod  of  1059  regulating  choice  to 
the  papacy — the  oldest  written  constitution  now  in  force,  since, 
in  spite  of  considerable  modification,  it  governs  the  selection  of 
Popes  to  this  day.  In  theory,  the  choice  of  the  Pope  had  been, 
like  that  of  other  bishops,  by  the  clergy  and  people  of  the  city 
of  his  see.  This  was  termed  a  canonical  election.  In  practice, 
such  election  had  meant  control  by  whatever  political  power 
was  dominant  in  Rome.  The  design  of  the  new  constitution 
was  to  remove  that  danger.  In  form,  it  put  into  law  the  cir- 


REFORM  IN  PAPAL  ELECTIONS  227 

cumstances  of  Nicholas's  own  election.1  Its  chief  author  seems 
to  have  been  Cardinal  Humbert.  It  provided  that,  on  the 
death  of  a  Pope,  the  cardinal  bishops  shall  first  consider  as  to 
his  successor  and  then  advise  with  the  other  cardinals.  Only 
after  their  selection  has  been  made  should  the  suffrages  of  the 
other  clergy  and  people  be  sought.  In  studiously  vague  lan 
guage,  the  document  guards  "  the  honor  and  reverence  due  to 
our  beloved  son  Henry" — that  is  the  youthful  Henry  IV — but 
does  not  in  the  least  define  the  Emperor's  share  in  the  choice. 
The  evident  purpose  was  to  put  the  election  into  the  hands  of 
the  cardinals,  primarily  of  the  cardinal  bishops.  It  was, 
furthermore,  provided  that  the  Pope  might  come  from  any 
where  in  the  church,  that  the  election  could  be  held  elsewhere 
than  in  Rome  in  case  of  necessity,  and  that  the  Pope  chosen 
should  possess  the  powers  of  his  office  immediately  on  election 
wherever  he  might  be.  This  was,  indeed,  a  revolution  in  the 
method  of  choice  of  the  Pope,  and  would  give  to  the  office  an 
independence  of  political  control  not  heretofore  possessed. 

Scarcely  had  these  new  political  and  constitutional  results 
been  achieved  than  they  were  imperilled  by  the  death  of 
Nicholas  II  in  1061.  That  of  the  energetic  Cardinal  Humbert 
also  occurred  the  same  year.  Hildebrand  became  more  than 
ever  the  ruling  force  in  the  reform  party.  Within  less  than 
three  months  of  Nicholas's  death,  Hildebrand  had  secured  the 
election  of  his  friend  Anselm,  bishop  of  Lucca,  as  Alexander  II 
(1061-1073).  The  German  bishops  were  hostile,  however,  to 
the  new  method  to  papal  election,  the  Lombard  prelates  dis 
liked  the  papal  support  of  the  Pataria,  and  the  Roman  nobles 
resented  their  loss  of  control  over  the  papacy.  These  hostile 
elements  now  united,  and  at  a  German  assembly  held  in  Basel 
in  1061  procured  from  the  Empress-regent  the  appointment  as 
Pope  of  Cadalus,  bishop  of  Parma,  who  took  the  name  of 
Honorius  II.  In  the  struggle  that  followed,  Honorius  nearly 
won;  but  a  revolution  in  Germany  in  1062  placed  the  chief 
power  in  that  realm  and  the  guardianship  of  the  young  Henry 
IV  in  the  hands  of  the  ambitious  Anno,  archbishop  of  Cologne. 
Anno  wished  to  stand  well  with  the  reform  party,  and  threw 
his  influence  on  the  side  of  Alexander,  who  was  declared  the 
rightful  Pope  at  a  synod  of  German  and  Italian  prelates  held 

1  Text  in  Henderson,  Select  Historical  Documents,  pp.  361-365.  The 
so-called  "Papal  Version"  is  in  all  probability  the  original. 


228         PAPACY  AND  EMPIRE   IX   CONTEST 

in  Mantua  in  1064.     Thus  Hildebrand's  bold  policy  triumphed 
over  a  divided  Germany. 

Alexander  II,  with  Hildebrand's  guidance,  advanced  the  papal 
authority  markedly.  Anno  of  Cologne  and  Siegfried  of  Mainz, 
two  of  the  most  powerful  prelates  of  Germany,  were  compelled 
to  do  penance  for  simony.  He  prevented  Henry  IV  from  secur 
ing  a  divorce  from  Queen  Bertha.  He  lent  his  approval  to 
William  the  Conqueror's  piratical  expedition  which  resulted 
in  the  Norman  conquest  of  England  in  1066,  and  further  aided 
William's  plans  by  the  establishment  of  Norman  bishops  in  the 
principal  English  sees.  He  gave  his  sanction  to  the  efforts  of 
the  Normans  of  southern  Italy  which  were  to  result  in  the 
conquest  of  Sicily.  Meanwhile  Henry  IV  came  of  age  in  1065. 
Far  from  being  a  weak  King,  he  soon  showed  himself  one  of  the 
most  resourceful  of  German  rulers.  It  was  inevitable  that  the 
papal  policy  regarding  ecclesiastical  appointments  should  clash 
with  that  historic  control  by  German  sovereigns  on  which  their 
power  in  the  empire  so  largely  rested.  The  actual  dispute 
came  over  the  archbishopric  of  Milan — a  post  of  the  first  im 
portance  for  the  control  of  northern  Italy.  Henry  had  ap 
pointed  Godfrey  of  Castiglione,  whom  Alexander  had  charged 
with  simony.  The  Pataria  of  Milan  chose  a  certain  Atto, 
whom  Alexander  recognized  as  rightful  archbishop.  In  spite 
of  that  act,  Henry  now  secured  Godfrey's  consecration,  in 
1073,  to  the  disputed  post.  The  struggle  was  fully  on. 
The  contest  involved  the  power  of  the  imperial  government 
and  the  claims  of  the  radical  papal  reform  party.  Alexander 
looked  upon  Henry  as  a  well-intentioned  young  man,  misled 
by  bad  advice,  and  he  therefore  excommunicated  not  Henry 
himself,  but  Henry's  immediate  counsellors  as  guilty  of  simony. 
Within  a  few  days  thereafter  Alexander  II  died,  leaving  the 
great  dispute  to  his  successor. 

SECTION   XI.      HILDEBRAND   AND  HENRY   IV 

Hildebrand's  election  came  about  in  curious  disregard  of  the 
new  constitution  established  under  Nicholas  II.  During  the 
funeral  of  Alexander  II,  in  St.  John  Lateran,  the  crowd  ac 
claimed  Hildebrand  Pope,  and  carried  him,  almost  in  a  riot,  to 
the  church  of  St.  Peter  in  Chains,  where  he  was  enthroned.  He 
took  the  name  of  Gregory  VII  (1073-1085).  In  his  accession 


IIILDEBRAXI)  AND  HEXRY  IV  229 

the  extremest  interpretation  of  the  principles  of  Augustine's 
City  of  God  had  reached  the  papal  throne.  The  papacy  he 
viewed  as  a  divinely  appointed  universal  sovereignty,  which  all 
must  obey,  and  to-  which  all  earthly  sovereigns  are  responsible, 
not  only  for  tl»eir  spiritual  welfare,  but  for  their  temporal  good 
government.  Though  Cardinal  Deusdedit,  rather  than  Hilde- 
brand,  .was  probably  the  author  of  the  famous  Dictatus,  it  well 
expresses  Hildebrand's  principles:  "That  the  Roman  Church 
was  founded  by  God  alone."  "That  the  Roman  pontiff  alone 
can  with  right  be  called  universal."  "That  he  alone  can  de 
pose  or  reinstate  bishops."  "That  he  alone  may  use  [i.  e.,  dis 
pose  of]  the  imperial  insignia."  "That  it  may  be  permitted 
him  to  depose  Emperors."  "That  he  himself  may  be  judged 
of  no  one."  "That  he  may  absolve  subjects  from  their  fealty 
to  wicked  men."1  It  was  nothing  less  than  an  ideal  of  world- 
rulership.  In  view  of  later  experience  it  may  be  called  imprac 
ticable  and  even  unchristian;  but  neither  Hildebrand  nor  his 
age  had  had  that  experience.  It  was  a  great  ideal  of  a  possible 
regenerated  human  society,  effected  by  obedience  to  command 
ing  spiritual  power,  and  as  such  was  deserving  of  respect  in 
those  who  held  it,  and  worthy  of  that  trial  which  alone  could 
reveal  its  value  or  worthlessness. 

The  opening  years  of  Hildebrand's  pontificate  were  favorable 
for  the  papacy.  A  rebellion  against  Henry  IV  by  his  Saxon 
subjects,  who  had  many  grievances,  and  the  discontent  of  the 
nobles  of  other  regions  kept  Henry  fully  occupied.  In  1074  he 
did  penance  in  Nuremberg  before  the  papal  legates,  and  prom 
ised  obedience.  At  the  Easter  synod  in  Rome  in  1075,  Hilde 
brand  renewed  the  decree  against  lay  investiture7~cfejiying  to 
Henry  any  share  in  creating  bishops.  A  few  months  later 
Henry's  fortunes  changed.  In  June,  1075,  his  defeat  of  the 
Saxons  made  him  apparently  master  of  Germany,  and  his  atti 
tude  toward  the  papacy  speedily  altered.  Henry  once  more 
made  an  appointment  to  the  archbishopric  of  Milan.  Hilde 
brand  replied,  in  December,  1075,  with  a  letter  calling  Henry 
to  severe  account.2  On  January  24,  1076,  Henry,  with  his 
nobles  and  bishops,  held  a  council  in  Worms,  at  which  the  turn 
coat  cardinal,  Hugh  the  White,  was  forward  with  personal 

1  Henderson,  Select  Historical  Documents,  pp.  366,   367 ;    extracts  in 
Robinson,  Readings  in  European  History,  1  :  274. 

2  Henderson,  pp.  367-371 ;  Robinson,  1 :  276-279. 


230  HILDEBRAND  AND  HENRY  IV 

charges  against  Hildebrand.  There  a  large  portion  of  the  Ger 
man  bishops  joined  in  a  fierce  denunciation  of  Hildebrand  and 
a  rejection  of  his  authority  as  Pope1 — an  action  for  which  the 
approval  of  the  Lombard  prelates  was  speedily  secured. 

Hildebrand's  reply  was  the  most  famous  of  mediaeval  papal 
decrees.  At  the  Roman  synod  of  February  22,  1076,  he  ex 
communicated  Henry,  forbad  him  authority  over  Germany  and 
Italy,  and  released  all  Henry's  subjects  from  their  oaths  of 
allegiance.2  It  was-  the  boldest  assertion  of  papal  authority 
that  had  ever  been  made.  To  it  Henry  replied  by  a  fiery  letter 
addressed  to  HiHebrand,  "now  no  pope,  but  a  false  monk,"  in 
which  he  called  on  Hildebrand  to  "come  down,  to  be  damned 
throughout  all  eternity."3 

Had  Henry  IV  had  a  united  Germany  behind  him  the  result 
might  easily  have  been  Hildebrand's  overthrow.  Germany  was 
not  united.  The  Saxons  and  Henry's  other  political  enemies 
used  the  opportunity  to  make  him  trouble.  Even  the  bishops 
had  regard  for  the  authority  of  a  Pope  they  had  nominally 
rejected.  Henry  was  unable  to  meet  the  rising  opposition. 
An  assembly  of  nobles  in  Tribur,  in  October,  1076,  declared  that 
unless  released  from  excommunication  within  a  year  he  would 
be  deposed,  and  the  Pope  was  invited  to  a  new  assembly  to 
meet  in  Augsburg,  in  February,  1077,  at  which  the  whole  Ger 
man  political  and  religious  situation  should  be  considered. 
Henry  was  in  great  danger  of  losing  his  throne.  It  became  a 
matter  of  vital  importance  to  free  himself  from  excommunica 
tion.  Hildebrand  refused  all  appeals;  he  would  settle  the  ques 
tions  at  Augsburg. 

Henry  IV  now  resolved  on  a  step  of  the  utmost  dramatic  and 
political  significance.  He  would  meet  Hildebrand  before  the 
Pope  could  reach  the  assembly  in  Augsburg  and  wring  from 
him  the  desired  absolution.  He  crossed  the  Alps  in  the  winter 
and  sought  Hildebrand  in  northern  Italy,  through  which  the 
Pope  was  passing  on  his  way  to  Germany.  In  doubt  whether 
Henry  came  in  peace  or  war,  Hildebrand  sought  refuge  in  the 
strong  castle  of  Canossa,  belonging  to  his  ardent  supporter,  the 
Countess  Matilda  of  Tuscany,  the  daughter  of  Beatrice  (ante, 

1  Henderson,  pp.  373-376. 

2  Henderson,  pp.  376,  377 ;  Robinson,  1 :  281,  282. 

3  Henderson,  pp.  372,  373 ;  Robinson,  1 :  279-281.     The  letter  seems  to 
belong  here,  rather  than  to  January,  1076,  to  which  it  is  often  assigned. 


HILDEBRAND  AND  HENRY  IV  231 

p.  226).  Thither  Henry  went,  and  there  presented  himself 
before  the  castle  gate  on  three  successive  days,  barefooted  as  a 
penitent.  The  Pope's  companions  pleaded  for  him,  and  on 
January  28,  1077,  Henry  IV  was  released  from  excommunica 
tion.  In  man^  ways  it  was  a  political  triumph  for  the  King. 
He  had  thrown  his  German  opponents  into  confusion.  He  had 
prevented  a  successful  assembly  in  Augsburg  under  papal  lead 
ership.  The  Pope's  plans  had  been  disappointed.  Yet  the 
event  has  always  remained  in  men's  recollection  as  the  deepest 
humiliation  of  the  mediaeval  empire  before  the  power  of  the 
church.1 

In  March,  1077,  Henry's  German  enemies,  without  Hilde- 
brand's  instigation,  chose  Rudolf,  duke  of  Swabia,  as  counter- 
King.  Civil  war  ensued,  while  the  Pope  balanced  one  claim 
ant  against  the  other,  hoping  to  gain  for  himself  the  ultimate 
decision.  Forced  at  last  to  take  sides,  Hildebrand,  at  the 
Roman  synod  in  March,  1080,  a  second  time  excommunicated 
and  deposed  Henry.2  The  same  political  weapons  can  seldom 
be  used  twice  effectively.  Sentiment  had  crystallized  in  Ger 
many,  and  this  time  the  Pope's  action  had  little  effect.  Henry 
answered  by  a  synod  in  Brixen  in  June,  1080,  deposing  Hilde 
brand,3  and  choosing  one  of  Hildebrand's  bitterest  opponents, 
Archbishop  Wibert  of  Ravenna,  as  Pope  in  his  place.  Wibert 
called  himself  Clement  III  (1080-1100).  The  death  of  Rudolf 
in  battle,  in  October  following,  left  Henry  stronger  in  Germany 
than  ever  before.  He  determined  to  be  rid  of  Hildebrand.  In 
1081  Henry  invaded  Italy,  but  it  was  three  years  before  he 
gained  possession  of  Rome.  Pressed  upon  by  the  overwhelming 
German  and  Lombard  forces,  Hildebrand's  political  supporters 
proved  too  weak  to  offer  permanently  effective  resistance.  The 
Roman  people,  and  no  less  than  thirteen  of  the  cardinals,  turned 
to  the  victorious  German  ruler  and  his  Pope.  In  March,  1084, 
Wibert  was  enthroned,  and  crowned  Henry  Emperor.  Hilde 
brand,  apparently  a  beaten  man,  still  held  the  castle  of  San 
Angelo,  and  absolutely  refused  any  compromise.  In  May  a 
Norman  army  came  to  Hildebrand's  relief,  but  these  rough  sup 
porters  so  burned  and  plundered  Rome,  that  he  had  to  with- 

1  The  best  account  is  that  of  Hildebrand  himself.     Henderson,  pp.  385- 
387  ;  Robinson,  1 :  282-283. 

2  Henderson,  pp.  388-391. 
8  Ibid,,  pp.  391-394. 


232    APPARENT  DEFEAT  BUT  WORK  CONTINUED 

draw  with  them,  and  after  nearly  a  year  of  this  painful  exile, 
he  died  in  Salerno,  on  May  25,  1085. 

Hildebrand's  relations  to  other  countries  have  been  passed 
by  in  the  account  of  his  great  struggle  with  Germany.  It  may 
be  sufficient  to  say  that  his  aims  were  similar,  though  so  en 
grossed  was  he  in  the  conflict  with  Henry  IV  that  he  never 
pushed  matters  to  such  an  extreme  with  the  Kings  of  England 
and  Erance.  He  attempted  to  bring  the  high  clergy  every 
where  under  his  control.  He  caused  extensive  codifi cation  of 
church  law  to  be  made.  He  enforced  clerical  celibacy  as  not 
only  the  theoretical  but  the  practical  rule  of  the  Roman  Church. 
If  his  methods  were  worldly  and  unscrupulous,  as  they  un 
doubtedly  were,  no  misfortune  ever  caused  him  to  abate  his 
claims,  and  even  in  apparent  defeat  he  won  a  moral  victory. 
The  ideals  that  he  had  established  for  the  papacy  were  to  live 
long  after  him. 

SECTION  XII.      THE   STRUGGLE  ENDS  IN  COMPROMISE 

On  the  death  of  Hildebrand,  the  cardinals  faithful  to  him 
chose  as  his  successor  Desiderius,  the  able  and  scholarly  abbot 
of  Monte  Cassino,  who  took  the  name  of  Victor  III  (1086- 
1087).  So  discouraging  was  the  outlook  that  he  long  refused 
the  doubtful  honor.  When  at  last  he  accepted  it,  he  quietly 
dropped  Hildebrand's  extremer  efforts  at  world-rulership, 
though  renewing  the  prohibition  of  lay  investiture  with  utmost 
vigor.  He  was,  however,  able  to  be  in  Rome  but  a  few  days. 
That  city  remained  in  the  hands  of  Wibert,  and  before  the  end 
of  1087  Victor  III  was  no  more.  The  situation  of  the  party 
of  Hildebrand  seemed  well-nigh  hopeless.  After  much  hesita 
tion,  a  few  of  the  reform  cardinals  met  in  Terraciria,  and  chose 
a  French  Cluny  monk,  who  had  been  appointed  a  cardinal 
bishop  by  Hildebrand,  Odo  of  Lagary,  as  Pope  Urban  II  (1088- 
1099).  A  man  of  Hildebrandian  convictions,  without  Hilde 
brand's  genius,  Urban  was  far  more  conciliatory  and  politically 
skilful.  He  sought  with  great  success  to  create  a  friendly 
party  among  the  German  clergy,  aided  thereto  by  the  monks 
of  the  influential  monastery  of  Hirschau.  He  stirred  up  dis 
affection  for  Henry  IV,  often  by  no  worthy  means.  Yet  it  was 
not  till  the  close  of  1093  that  Urban  was  able  to  take  effective 
possession  of  Rome  and  drive  out  Wibert.  His  rise  in  power 


THE  STRUGGLE  CONTINUED 

was  thence  rapid.  At  a  great  synod  held  in  Piacenza  in  March, 
1095,  he  sounded  the  note  of  a  crusade.  At  Clermont  in  No 
vember  of  the  same  year  he  brought  the  Crusade  into  being 
(p.  239).  On  the  flood  of  the  crusading  movement  Urban  rose 
at  once  to  a  ppsition  of  European  leadership.  Henry  IV  and 
Wibert  might  oppose  him,  but  the  papacy  had  achieved  a 
popular  significance  compared  with  which  they  had  nothing  to 
offer. 

Though  men  were  weary  of  the  long  strife,  the  next  Pope, 
Paschal  II  (1099-1118),  made  matters  worse  rather  than  bet 
ter.  Henry  IV's  last  days  were  disastrous.  A  successful  re 
bellion,  headed  by  his  son,  Henry  V  (1106-1125),  forced  his 
abdication  in  1105.  His  death  followed  the  next  year.  Henry 
V's  position  in  Germany  was  stronger  than  his  father's  ever 
had  been,  and  he  was  more  unscrupulous.  His  assertion  of  his 
rights  of  investiture  was  as  insistent  as  that  of  his  father.  In 
1110  Henry  V  marched  on  Rome  in  force.  Paschal  II  was  pow 
erless  and  without  the  courage  of  a  Hildebrand.  The  Pope  and 
Henry  now  agreed  (1111)  that  the  King  should  resign  his  right 
of  investiture,  provided  the  bishops  of  Germany  should  relin 
quish  to  him  all  temporal  lordships.1  That  would  have  been  a 
revolution  that  would  have  reduced  the  German  church  to 
poverty,  and  the  protest  raised  on  its  promulgation  in  Rome, 
in  February,  1111,  showed  it  impossible  of  accomplishment. 
Henry  V  then  took  the  Pope  and  the  cardinals  prisoners.  Pas 
chal  weakened.  In  April,  1111,  he  resigned  to  Henry  investi 
ture  with  ring  and  staff,  and  crowned  him  Emperor.2  The  Hil 
debrand  ian  party  stormed  in  protest.  At  the  Roman  synod  of 
March,  1112,  Paschal  withdrew  his  agreement,  which  he  could 
well  hold  was  wrung  from  him  by  force.  A  synod  in  Vienne  in 
September  excommunicated  Henry  and  forbad  lay  investiture, 
and  this  action  the  Pope  approved. 

Yet  the  basis  of  a  compromise  wras  already  in  sight.  Two 
French  church  leaders,  Ivo,  bishop  of  Chartres,  and  Hugo  of 
Fleury,  in  writings  between  1099  and  1106,  had  argued  that 
church  and  state  each  had  their  rights  of  investiture,  the  one 
with  spiritual,  the  other  with  temporal  authority.  Anselm,  the 
famous  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  a  firm  supporter  of  reform 
principles  (1093-1109),  had  refused  investiture  from  Henry  I 

1  Henderson,  pp.  405-407 ;  Robinson,  1 :  290-292. 

2  Henderson,  pp.  407,  408. 


234  THE  CONCORDAT  OF  WORMS 

of  England  (1100-1135),  and -led  to  a  contest  which  ended  in 
the  resignation  by  the  King  of  investiture  with  ring  and  staff, 
while  retaining  to  the  crown  investiture  with  temporal  posses 
sion  by  the  reception  of  an  oath  of  fealty.  These  principles  and 
precedents  influenced  the  further  course  of  the  controversy. 
The  compromise  came  in  1122,  in  the  Concordat  of  Worms, 
arranged  between  Henry  V  and  Pope  Calixtus  II  (1119-1124). 
By  mutual  agreement,  elections  of  bishops  and  abbots  in  Ger 
many  were  to  be  free  and  in  canonical  form,  yet  the  presence  of 
the  Emperor  at  the  choice  was  allowed,  and  in  case  of  disputed 
election  he  should  consult  with  the  metropolitan  and  other  bish 
ops  of  the  province.  In  other  parts  of  the  empire,  Burgundy 
and  Italy,  no  mention  was  made  of  the  imperial  presence.  The 
Emperor  renounced  investiture  with  ring  and  staff,  i.  e.,  with 
the  symbols  of  spiritual  authority.  In  turn,  the  Pope  granted 
him  the  right  of  investiture  with  the  temporal  possessions  of 
the  office  by  the  touch  of  the  royal  sceptre,  without  demand  of 
payment  from  the  candidate.  This  imperial  recognition  was 
to  take  place  in  Germany  before  consecration,  and  in  the  other 
parts  of  the  empire  within  six  months  thereafter.1  The  effect 
was  that  in  Germany  at  least  a  bishop  or  abbot  must  be  accept 
able  both  to  the  church  and  to  the  Emperor.  In  Italy  the 
imperial  power,  which  had  rested  on  control  of  churchly  ap 
pointments,  was  greatly  broken.  It  was  an  outcome  of  the 
struggle  which  would  but  partially  have  satisfied  Hildebrand. 
Yet  the  church  had  won  much.  If  not  superior  to  the  state, 
it  had  vindicated  its  equality  with  the  temporal  power. 

SECTION  XIII.      THE   GREEK   CHURCH   AFTER  THE   PICTURE 
CONTROVERSY 

The  Isaurian  dynasty  in  Constantinople  (717-802),  witnessed 
the  severe  internal  conflicts  caused  by  the  picture-worshipping 
controversy,  which  was  in  a  measure  a  struggle  for  the  freedom 
of  the  church  from  imperial  control  (ante,  p.  162).  It  beheld 
the  loss  of  Rome  and  of  the  Exarchate,  and  the  rise  of  the 
renewed  Western  empire  under  Charlemagne.  The  periods  of 
the  Phrygian  (820-867)  and  Macedonian  dynasties  (867-1057) 
were  marked  by  a  notable  revival  of  learning,  so  that,  intellec 
tually,  the  East  was  decidedly  superior  to  the  West.  The  pa- 

1  Henderson,  pp.  408,  409 ;  Robinson,  1 :  292,  293. 


THE  GREEK  CHURCH.    THE  PAULICIANS    235 

triarch,  Photius,  whose  quarrel  with  Nicholas  I  has  already 
been  noted,  was  of  eminent  scholarship.  His  Myriobiblon  is 
of  permanent  worth,  as  preserving  much  of  ancient  classical 
authors  otherwise  lost.  Symeon  "  Metaphrastes  "  compiled  his 
famous  collection  of  the  lives  of  the  Eastern  saints  in  the  tenth 
century.  In  Symeon,  "the  New  Theologian"  (?-1040?),  the 
Greek. Church  had  its  noblest  mystic,  who  believed  that  the 
revelation  of  the  divine  light — the  very  vision  of  God — is  pos 
sible  of  attainment  and  is  of  grace,  bringing  peace,  joy,  and  jus 
tification.  Theologically,  the  Greek  world  had  nothing  new  to 
offer.  It  held  with  intensity  to  the  traditions  of  the  past. 

The  chief  religious  controversy  in  the  East  of  this  epoch  was 
that  caused  by  the  Paulicians.  The  origin  and  history  of  the 
movement  is  obscure.  They  called  themselves  Christians  sim 
ply,  their  nickname  being  apparently  due  to  their  reverence 
for  Paul  the  Apostle,  rather  than  as  sometimes  claimed  to  any 
real  connection  with  Paul  of  Samosata.  The  movement  ap 
pears  to  have  begun  with  a  Constantine-Silvanus,  of  Mananalis, 
near  Samosata,  about  650-660.  In  it  ancient  heretical  beliefs, 
akin  to  and  perhaps  derived  from  the  Marcionites  and  Gnostics, 
reappeared.  Though  the  Paulicians  repudiated  Manichseism, 
they  were  dualists,  holding  that  this  world  is  the  creation  of 
an  evil  power,  while  souls  are  from  the  kingdom  of  the  good 
God.  They  accepted  the  New  Testament,  with  the  possible 
exception  of  the  writings  ascribed  to  Peter,  as  the  message  of 
the  righteous  God.  They  viewed  Christ  as  an  angel  sent  by 
the  good  God,  and  hence  Son  of  God  by  adoption.  His  work 
was  primarily  that  of  instruction.  They  rejected  monasticism, 
the  external  sacraments,  the  cross,  images,  and  relics.  Their 
ministry  was  that  of  wandering  preachers  and  "  copyists."  The 
Catholic  hierarchy  they  repudiated.  They  opposed  the  ex- 
ternalism  of  current  orthodox  religious  life. 

The  Paulicians  seem  to  have  spread  rapidly  in  the  Eastern 
empire,  and  to  have  taken  strong  root  in  Armenia.  Persecuted 
by  the  orthodox,  their  military  powers  procured  them  consider 
able  respect.  Constantine  V  transplanted  colonies  of  them  to 
the  Balkan  peninsula  in  752,  as  a  defense  against  the  Bulgarians 
— a  process  which  was  repeated  on  a  larger  scale  by  the  Em 
peror,  John  Tzimiskes,  in  969.  There  they  seem  to  have  given 
origin  to  the  very  similar  Bogomiles,  who  in  turn  were  to  be 
influential  in  the  development  of  the  Cathari  of  southern  France 


236  THE  SCANDINAVIAN  LANDS 

(p.  249).  Driven  to  seek  refuge  among  the  Saracens,  some~sec- 
tions  of  the  Paulicians  harassed  the  borders  of  the  empire  in 
the  ninth  century,  and  even  penetrated  deeply  into  it,  till  their 
military  success,  though  not  their  religious  activity,  was  per 
manently  checked  by  the  Emperor,  Basil  I,  in  871. 

The  latter  half  of  the  ninth  and  the  tenth  centuries  was  a 
period  of  revived  military  power  for  the  Eastern  empire,  espe 
cially  under  John  Tzimiskes  (969-976)  and  Basil  II  (976-1025). 
By  the  latter,  Bulgaria  and  Armenia  were  conquered.  Internal 
dissensions  and  a  fear  of  usurping  militarism  weakened  the 
empire  in  the  eleventh  century,  so  that  the  rise  of  the  Seljuk 
Turks  found  it  unprepared.  In  1071  the  Turks  conquered  a 
large  part  of  Asia  Minor,  and  in  1080  established  themselves  in 
Nicsea,  less  than  a  hundred  miles  from  Constantinople.  This 
great  loss  to  Christianity  was  to  be  one  of  the  causes  leading 
to  the  Crusades. 

SECTION  XIV.      THE  SPREAD   OF  THE  CHURCH 

The  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries  were  an  epoch  of  large 
extension  of  Christianity.  Ansgar's  work  in  the  Scandinavian 
lands  (ante,  p.  213)  had  left  few  results.  Scandinavian  Chris- 
tianization  was  a  slow  and  gradual  process.  Unni,  archbishop 
of  Hamburg  (918-936),  imitated  Ansgar,  but  without  great 
success.  The  work  was  carried  forward  by  Archbishop  Adaldag 
(937-988).  Under  his  influence,  King  Harold  Bluetooth  of 
Denmark  accepted  Christianity,  and  Danish  bishoprics  were 
established.  Under  Harold's  son,  Sweyn,  heathenism  was 
again  in  power;  but  he  was  brought  to  favor  the  church  in 
995,  and  the  work  was  completed  in  Denmark  by  King  Canute 
the  Great  (1015-1035),  who  also  ruled  England  and,  for  a 
time,  Norway. 

The  story  of  Norway  is  similar.  Some  Christian  beginnings 
were  made  under  Hakon  I  (935-961),  and  missionaries  were 
sent  by  Harold  Bluetooth  of  Denmark.  Christianity  in  Nor 
way  was  not  permanently  established  till  the  time  of  Olaf  I 
(995-1000),  who  brought  in  English  preachers.  The  work 
was  now  extended  to  the  Orkneys,  Shetland,  Hebrides,  Faroe, 
Iceland,  and  Greenland,  then  in  Scandinavian  possession. 
Olaf  II  (1015-1028)  enforced  Christianity  in  Norway  with 
such  extreme  measures  that  he  was  deposed  and  Canute  gained 


HUNGARY,   POLAND,  AND   RUSSIA  237 

control;  yet  lie  lives  in  tradition  as  St.  Olaf.  Magnus  I  (1035- 
1047)  completed  the  work. 

In  Sweden,  after  many  beginnings  from  the  time  of  Ansgar, 
Christianity  was  effectively  established  by  King  Olaf  Skott- 
konung  (994-1024),  who  was  baptized  in  1008.  Yet  the  work 
was  slow,  and  heathenism  was  not  fully  overthrown  till  about 
1100.  Finland  and  Lapland  were  not  reached  till  two  cen 
turies  later. 

After  various  efforts  in  the  tenth  century,  Christianity  was 
effectively  established  in  Hungary  by  King  Stephen  I  (997- 
1038),  the  organizer  of  the  Hungarian  monarchy,  who  lives 
in  history  as  St.  Stephen.  The  Polish  duke,  Mieczyslaw,  ac 
cepted  Christianity  in  967,  and  in  1000  King  Boleslaus  I 
(992-1025)  organized  the  Polish  church  with  an  archbishopric 
in  Gnesen.  Pomerania  was  not  Christianized  till  1124-1128. 

The  movements  just  considered  were  the  work  of  the  Latin 
Church.  The  great  extension  of  the  Greek  Church  lies  in  this 
period  and  was  accomplished  by  the  conversion  of  Russia. 
Its  beginnings  are  obscure.  Efforts  for  the  spread  of  Chris 
tianity  in  Russia  seem  to  have  been  made  as  early  as  the  time 
of  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  Photius  (866).  The  Rus 
sian  Queen,  Olga,  received  baptism  on  a  visit  to  Constantinople 
in  957.  The  work  was  at  last  definitely  established  by  Grand- 
duke  Vladimir  I  (980-1015),  who  received  baptism  in  988, 
and  compelled  his  subjects  to  follow  his  example.  A  metro 
politan,  nominated  by  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  was 
placed  at  the  head  of  the  Russian  church,  with  his  see  speedily 
in  Kiev,  from  which  it  was  transferred  in  1299  to  the  city  of 
Vladimir,  and  in  1325  to  Moscow. 


PERIOD  V.  THE  LATER  MIDDLE  AGES 

SECTION  I.      THE  CRUSADES 

THE  Crusades  are  in  many  ways  the  most  remarkable  of 
the  phenomena  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Their  causes  were  many. 
The  historian  who  emphasizes  economic  influences  may  well 
claim  the  unusually  trying  conditions  of  the  eleventh  century 
as  a  main  source.  Between  970  and  1040  forty-eight  famine 
years  were  counted.  From  1085  to  1095  conditions  were 
even  worse.  Misery  and  unrest  prevailed  widely.  The  more 
settled  conditions  of  the  age  made  impossible  such  migrations 
of  nations  as  had  been  exhibited  in  the  Germanic  invasions 
at  the  downfall  of  the  Western  empire.  The  same  desire  to 
change  environment  was,  however,  felt. 

Stimulated  by  these  economic  conditions,  doubtless,  the 
whole  eleventh_jcentiiry  wa,a  a,  period  of  deepening  religions 
feeTmgi ItT^mnifestations  took  monastic  and  ascetic  forms. 
It  was  characterized  by  a  strong  sense  of  "other-worldliness," 
of  the  misery  of  earth  and  the  blessedness  of  heaven.  This 
increasing  religious  zeal  had  been  the  forge  which  hnd  reformed 
the  papacy,  and  had  supported  antagonism  to  simony  and 
Nicolaitanism,  and  nerved  the  long  struggle  with  the  empire. 
Those  regions  where  the  reform  movement  had  shone  brightest, 
or  which  had  come  into  closest  relations  with  the  reforming 
papacy,  France,  Lorraine,  and  southern  Italy,  were  the  recruit 
ing-grounds  of  the  chief  crusading  armies.  The  jpjety  nf  fjip 
time  placecLgreat  vain**  nn  rpljcs  and  pilgrimages,  and  what 
more  precious  relic  could  there  be,  or  what  nobler  pilgrimage 
shrine,  than  the  land  hallowed  by  the  life,  death,  and  resurrec 
tion  of  Christ?  That  land  had  been  an  object  of  pilgrimage 
since  the  days  of  Constantine.  Though  Jerusalem  had  been 
in  Moslem  possession  since  638,  pilgrimages  had  been,  save 
for  brief  intervals,  practically  uninterrupted.  They  had  never 
been  more  numerous  than  in  the  eleventh  century,  till  the 
conquest  of  much  of  Asia  Minor,  from  1071  onward,  and  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem,  by  the  Seljuk  Turks,  mnde  pilgrimage 
ip  nnd  dpfifrrRted  *b?  ho 
238 


CAUSES  OF  THE  CRUSADES  239 

It  was  to  an  age  profoundly  impressed  with  the  spiritual 
advantage  of  pilgrimages  that  the  news  of  these  things  came. 
The  time,  moreover,  was  witnessing  successful  contests  with 
Mohammedanism.  Between  1060  and  1090  the  Normans 
of  southern  Jtaly  had  wrested  Sicily  from  the  Moslems. 
Under  Ferdinand  I  of  Castile  (1028-1065)  the  effective  Chris 
tian  reconquest  of  Spain  from  the  Mohammedans  had  begun. 
The  later  eleventh  century  is  the  age  of  the  Cid  (1040?-1099). 
The  feeling  was  wide-spread  that  Christianity  could  dispossess 
Mohammedanism.  Love  of  adventure,  hopes  for  plunder, 
desire  for  territorial  advancement  and  religious  hatred,  un- 
doubteoUymoved  the  Crusaders  with  very  earthly  impulses. 
We  should  wrong  them,  however,  if  we  did  not  recognize  with 
equal  clearness  that  they  thought  they  were  doing  something 
of  the  highest  importance  for  their  souls  and  for  Christ. 

The  first  impulse  to  the  Crusades  came  from  an  appeal  of 
the~Easternt  Emperor^Michael  Vli  (lU(^-1078),.t,n  Hildpbrand 
for  ^ip^a^ajinstjthe  Seljufes.  That  great  Pope,  to  whom  this 
seemed  to  promise  the  reunion  of  Greek  and  Latin  Christen 
dom,  took  the  matter  up  in  1074,  and  was  able  to  report  to 
Henry  IV  of  Germany  that  fifty  thousand  men  were  ready  to 
go  under  the  proper  leadership.  The  speedy  outbreak  of  the 
investiture  struggle  frustrated  the  plan.  It  was  effectively 
to  be  revived  by  Urban  II,  the  heir  in  so  many  directions  of 
Hildebrand. 

f  Alexius  I  (1081-1118),  a  stronger  ruler  than  his  immediate 
predecessors  in  Constantinople,  felt  unable  to  cope  with  the 
perils  which  threatened  the  empire.  He,  therefore,  appealed 
to  Urban  II  for  assistance.  Urban  received  the  imperial  mes 
sengers  at  the  synod  in  Piacenza,  in  northern  Italy,  in  March, 
1095,  and  promised  his  help.  At  the  synod  held  in  Clermont, 
in  eastern  France,  in  the  following  November,  Urban  now 
proclaimed  the  Crusade  in  an  appeal  of  almost  unexampled 
consequence.  The  enterprise  had  magnified  in  his  concep 
tion  from  that  of  aid  to  the  hard-pressed  Alexius  to  a  general 
rescue  of  the  holy  places  from  Moslem  hands.  H&  called  on 
all  Christendom  to  take  part  in  the  work,  promising  for- 

giVpnpssj^sins  tn  a.11  and  fitpriml  lifp  to  thos^  wfrn  shniiM  fall 

in  theenterprise.  The  message  found  immediate  and  enthu 
siastic  response!  Among  the  popular  preachers  who  took  it 
up  none  was  more  famous  than  Peter  the  Hermit,  a  monk 


240  THE  FIRST  CRUSADE 

from  Amiens  or  its  vicinity.  Early  legend  attributed  to  him 
the  origin  of  the  Crusade  itself,  of  which  he  was  unquestionably 
one  of  the  most  effective  proclaimers.  He  does  not  deserve 
the  distinction  thus  attributed  to  him,  nor  was  his  conduct  on 
the  Crusade,  once  it  had  started,  such  as  to  do  credit  to  his 
leadership  or  even  to  his  courage. 

Such  was  the  enthusiasm  engendered,  especially  in  France, 
that  large  groups  of  peasants,  with  some  knights  among  them, 
set  forth  in  the  spring  of  1096,  under  the  lead  of  Walter  the 
Penniless;  a  priest,  Gottschalk,  and  Peter  the  Hermit  himself. 
By  some  of  these  wild  companies  many  Jews  were  massacred 
in  the  Rhine  cities.  Their  own  disorderly  pillage  led  to  savage 
reprisals  in  Hungary  and  the  Balkans.  That  under  Peter 
reached  Constantinople,  but  was  almost  entirely  destroyed  by 
the  Turks  in  an  attempt  to  reach  Nicsea.  Peter  himself  did 
not  share  this  catastrophe,  joined  the  main  crusading  force, 
and  survived  the  perils  of  the  expedition. 

The  real  work  of  the  First  Crusade  was  accomplished  by 
the  feudal  nobility  of  Europe.  Three  great  armies  were  raised. 
That  from  Lorraine  and  Belgium  included  Godfrey  of  Bouillon, 
the  moral  hero  of  the  Crusade,  since  he  commanded  the  respect 
due  to  his  single-minded  and  unselfish  devotion  to  its  aims, 
though  not  its  ablest  general.  With  Godfrey  were  his  brothers, 
Baldwin  and  Eustace.  Other  armies  from  northern  France 
were  led  by  Hugh  of  Vermandois  and  Robert  of  Normandy. 
From  southern  France  came  a  large  force  under  Count  Rai- 
mond  of  Toulouse,  and  from  Norman  Italy  a  well-equipped 
army  led  by  Bohemund  of  Taranto  and  his  nephew  Tancred. 
The  earliest  of  these  forces  started  in  August,  1096.  No  single 
commander  led  the  hosts.  Urban  II  had  appointed  Bishop 
Ademar  of  Puy  his  legate;  and  Ademar  designated  Constan 
tinople  as  the  gathering  place.  Thither  each  army  made  its 
way  as  best  it  could,  arriving  there  in  the  winter  and  spring 
of  1096-1097,  and  causing  Alexius  no  little  difficulty  by  their 
disorder  and  demands. 

In  May,  1097,  the  crusading  army  began  the  siege  of  Nicsea. 
Its  surrender  followed  in  June.  On  July  1  a  great  victory 
over  the  Turks  near  Dorylseum  opened  the  route  across  Asia 
Minor,  so  that  Iconium  was  reached,  after  severe  losses  through 
hunger  and  thirst,  by  the  middle  of  August.  By  October  the 
crusading  host  was  before  the  walls  of  Antioch.  That  city 


Longl 


East    W' from          Greenwich. 


THE  CRUSADES. 


first  Crusade,  1096  1099 

Second  CruHade,  11  tf 

Louis  VH    Conrad  III 

Third  Crusade,  11S9  1190  Frederic  1 

Third  Crusade,  1190  1191  Richard 

and  Philip  Augustus. 

•CAL.OFM.U* 


THE  FIRST  CRUSADE  241 

it  captured  only  after  a  difficult  siege,  on  June  3,  1098.  Three 
days  later  the  Crusaders  were  besieged  in  the  city  by  the 
Turkish  ruler  Kerbogha  of  Mosul.  The  crisis  of  the  Crusade 
was  this  time  of  peril  and  despair;  but  on  June  28  Kerbogha 
was  completely f  defeated.  Yet  it  was  not  till  June,  1099,  that 
Jerusalem  was  reached,  and  not  till  July  15  that  it  was  cap 
tured  and  its  inhabitants  put  to  the  sword.  The  complete 
defeat  of  an  Egyptian  relieving  army  near  Ascalon  on  August 
12,  1099,  crowned  the  success  of  the  Crusade. 

On  the  completion  of  the  work,  Godfrey  of  Bouillon  was 
chosen  Protector  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre.  He  died  in  July, 
1100,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  abler  brother,  who  had  estab 
lished  a  Latin  county  in  Edessa,  and  now  took  the  title  of  King 
Baldwin  I  (1100-1118).  The  Crusaders  were  from  the  feudal 
West,  and  the  country  was  divided  and  organized  in  full  feudal 
fashion.  It  included,  besides  the  Holy  Land,  the  principality 
of  Antioch,  and  the  counties  of  Tripoli  and  Edessa,  which  were 
practically  independent  of  the  King  of  Jerusalem.  In  the 
towns  important  Italian  business  settlements  sprang  up;  but 
most  of  the  knights  were  French.  Under  a  patriarch  of  the 
Latin  rite  in  Jerusalem,  the  country  was  divided  into  four  arch 
bishoprics  and  ten  bishoprics,  and  numerous  monasteries  were 
established. 

The  greatest  support  of  the  kingdom  soon  came  to  be  the 
military  orders.  Of  these,  that  of  the  Templars  was  founded 
by  Hugo  de  Pay  ens  in  1119,  and  granted  quarters  near  the 
site  of  the  temple — hence  their  name — by  King  Baldwin  II 
(1118-1131).  Through  the  hearty  support  of  Bernard  of  Clair- 
vaux  the  order  received  papal  approval  in  1128,  and  soon  won 
wide  popularity  in  the  West.  Its  members  took  the  usual 
monastic  vows  and  pledged  themselves,  in  addition,  to  fight 
for  the  defense  of  the  Holy  Land  and  to  protect  pilgrims.  They 
were  not  clergy,  but  laymen.  In  some  respects  the  order  was 
like  a  modern  missionary  society.  Those  who  sympathized 
with  the  Crusade,  but  were  debarred  by  age  or  sex  from  a 
personal  share  in  the  work,  gave  largely  that  they  might  be 
represented  by  others  through  the  order.  Since  property 
was  mostly  in  land,  the  Templars  soon  became  great  land 
holders  in  the  West.  Their  independence  and  wealth  made 
them  objects  of  royal  jealousy,  especially  after  their  original 
purpose  had  been  frustrated  by  the  end  of  the  Crusades,  and 


242    THE  MILITARY  ORDERS.    LATER  CRUSADES 

led  to  their  brutal  suppression  in  France  in  1307  by  King 
Philip  IV  (1285-1314).  While  the  Crusades  lasted  they  were 
a  main  bulwark  of  the  kingdom  of  Jerusalem. 

Much  the  same  thing  may  be  said  of  the  great  rivals  of  the 
Templars,  the  Hospitallers  or  Knights  of  St.  John.  Charle 
magne  had  founded  a  hospital  in  Jerusalem,  which  was  de 
stroyed  in  1010.  Refounded  by  citizens  of  Amalfi,  in  Italy, 
it  was  in  existence  before  the  First  Crusade,  and  was  named 
for  the  church  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  near  which  it  stood. 
This  foundation  was  made  into  a  military  order  by  its  grand 
master,  Raymond  du  Puy  (1120-1160?),  though  without  neg 
lecting  its  duties  to  the  sick.  After  the  crusading  epoch  it 
maintained  a  struggle  with  the  Turks  from  its  seat  in  Rhodes 
(1310-1523),  and  then  from  Malta  (1530-1798).  A  third  and 
later  order  was  that  of  the  Teutonic  Knights,  founded  by 
Germans  in  1190.  Its  chief  work,  however,  was  not  to  be  in 
Palestine  but,  from  1229  onward,  in  Prussia,  or  as  it  is  now 
known,  East  Prussia,  where  it  was  a  pioneer  in  civilization  and 
Christianization. 

In  spite  of  feudal  disorganization  the  kingdom  of  Jerusalem 
was  fairly  successful  till  the  capture  of  Edessa  by  the  Mo 
hammedans  in  1144  robbed  it  of  its  northeastern  bulwark. 
Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  now  at  the  height  of  his  fame,  proclaimed 
a  new  Crusade  and  enlisted  Louis  VII  of  France  (1137-1180) 
and  the  Emperor  Conrad  III  (1138-1152)  from  Germany  in 
1146.  In  1147  the  Second  Crusade  set  forth;  but  it  showed 
little  of  the  fiery  enthusiasm  of  its  predecessor,  its  forces  largely 
perished  in  Asia  Minor,  and  such  as  reached  Palestine  were 
badly  defeated  in  an  attempt  to  take  Damascus,  in  1148.  It 
was  a  disastrous  failure,  and  its  collapse  left  a  bitter  feeling  in 
the  West  toward  the  Eastern  empire,  to  whose  princes  that 
failure,  rightly  or  wrongly,  was  charged. 

One  reason  of  the  success  of  the  Latin  kingdom  had  been 
the  quarrels  of  the  Mohammedans.  In  1171  the  Kurdish  gen 
eral,  Saladin,  made  himself  master  of  Egypt;  by  1174  he  had 
secured  Damascus,  and  by  1183  Saladin's  territories  surrounded 
the  Latin  kingdom  on  the  north,  east,  and  south.  A  united 
Mohammedanism  had  now  to  be  met.  Results  soon  followed. 
At  Hattin  the  Latin  army  was  defeated  in  July,  1187.  The 
loss  of  Jerusalem  and  of  most  of  the  Holy  Land  speedily  fol 
lowed.  The  news  of  this  catastrophe  roused  Europe  to  the 


LATER  CRUSADES  243 

Third  Crusade  (1189-1192).  None  of  the  Crusades  was  more 
elaborately  equipped.  Three  great  armies  were  led  by  the 
Emperor  Frederick  Barbarossa  (1152-1190),  the  first  soldier 
of  his  age,  by  King  Philip  Augustus  of  France  (1179-1223), 
and  by  King  Richard  "Cceur  de  Lion"  of  England  (1189-1199). 
Frederick  was*  accidentally  drowned  in  Cilicia.  His  army, 
deprived  of  his  vigorous  leadership,  was  utterly  ineffective. 
The  quarrels  between  the  Kings  of  France  and  England,  and 
Philip's  speedy  return  to  France  to  push  his  own  political 
schemes,  rendered  the  whole  expedition  almost  abortive.  Acre 
was  recovered,  but  Jerusalem  remained  in  Moslem  possession. 
The  Fourth  Crusade  (1202-1204)  was  a  small  affair  as  far 
as  numbers  engaged,  but  of  important  political  and  religious 
consequences.  Its  forces  were  from  the  districts  of  northern 
France  known  as  Champagne  and  Blois,  and  from  Flanders. 
Men  had  become  convinced  that  the  true  route  to  the  recovery 
of  Jerusalem  was  the  preliminary  conquest  of  Egypt.  The 
Crusaders  therefore  bargained  with  the  Venetians  for  trans 
portation  thither.  Unable  to  raise  the  full  cost,  they  accepted 
the  proposition  of  the  Venetians  that,  in  lieu  of  the  balance  due, 
they  stop  on  their  way  and  conquer  Zara  from  Hungary  for 
Venice.  This  they  did.  A  much  greater  proposal  was  now 
made  to  them.  They  should  stop  at  Constantinople,  and  assist 
in  dethroning  the  imperial  usurper,  Alexius  III  (1195-1203). 
Alexius,  son  of  the  deposed  Isaac  II,  promised  the  Crusaders 
large  payment  and  help  on  their  expedition  provided  they 
would  overthrow  the  usurper,  and  crafty  Venice  saw  bright 
prospects  of  increased  trade.  Western  hatred  of  the  Greeks 
contributed.  Though  Pope  Innocent  III  forbad  this  division 
of  purpose,  the  Crusaders  were  persuaded.  Alexius  III  was 
easily  driven  from  his  throne ;  but  the  other  Alexius  was  unable 
to  keep  his  promises  to  the  Crusaders,  who  now  with  the  Vene 
tians,  in  1204,  captured  Constantinople,  and  plundered  its 
treasures.  No  booty  was  more  eagerly  sought  than  the  relics 
in  the  churches,  which  now  went  to  enrich  the  places  of  worship 
of  the  West.  Baldwin  of  Flanders  was  made  Emperor,  and  a 
large  portion  of  the  Eastern  empire  was  divided,  feudal  fash 
ion,  among  Western  knights.  Venice  obtained  a  considerable 
part  and  a  monopoly  of  trade.  A  Latin  patriarch  of  Constanti 
nople  was  appointed,  and  the  Greek  Church  made  subject  to 
the  Pope.  The  Eastern  empire  still  continued,  though  it  was 


244  LATER  CRUSADES 

not  to  regain  Constantinople  till  1261.  This  Latin  conquest 
was  disastrous.  It  greatly  weakened  the  Eastern  empire,  and 
augmented  the  hatred  between  Greek  and  Latin  Christianity. 

A  melancholy  episode  was  the  so-called  "Children's  Crusade" 
of  1212.  A  shepherd  boy,  Stephen,  in  France,  and  a  boy  of 
Cologne,  in  Germany,  Nicholas,  gathered  thousands  of  children. 
Straggling  to  Italy,  they  were  largely  sold  into  slavery  in  Egypt. 
Other  crusading  attempts  were  made.  An  expedition  against 
Egypt,  in  1218-1221,  had  some  initial  success,  but  ended  in 
failure.  It  is  usually  called  the  Fifth  Crusade.  The  most 
curious  was  the  Sixth  (1228-1229).  The  free-thinking  Emperor 
Frederick  II  (1212-1250),  had  taken  the  cross  in  1215,  but 
showed  no  haste  to  fulfil  his  vows.  At  last,  in  1227,  he  started, 
but  soon  put  back.  He  seems  to  have  been  really  ill,  but  Pope 
Gregory  IX  (1227-1241),  believing  him  a  deserter,  and  having 
other  grounds  of  hostility,  excommunicated  him.  In  spite  of" 
the  ban,  Frederick  went  forward  in  1228,  and  the  next  year 
secured,  by  treaty  with  the  Sultan  of  Egypt,  possession  of 
Jerusalem,  Bethlehem,  Nazareth  and  a  path  to  the  coast. 
Jerusalem  was  once  more  in  Christian  keeping  till  1244,  when  it 
was  permanently  lost.  The  crusading  spirit  was  now  well-nigh 
spent,  though  Louis  IX  of  France  (St.  Louis,  1226-1270)  led 
a  disastrous  expedition  against  Egypt  in  1248-1250,  in  which  he 
was  taken  prisoner,  and  an  attack  on  Tunis  in  1270,  in  which 
he  lost  his  life.  The  last  considerable  expedition  was  that  of 
Prince  Edward,  soon  to  be  Edward  I  of  England  (1272-1307), 
in  1271  and  1272.  In  1291,  the  last  of  the  Latin  holdings  in 
Palestine  was  lost.  The  Crusades  were  over,  though  men 
continued  to  talk  of  new  expeditions  for  nearly  two  centuries 
more. 

Viewed  from  the  aspect  of  their  purpose  the  Crusadesjvgre 
failures^ Thgy_^made  no  permanent  conquest  of  the  Iloly 
LancL  It  may  be  "doubted  whether  they  greatly  retarded  the 
advance  of  Mohammedanism.  Their  costjnjjyes  and  treasure 
was^enormous.  Though  initiated  in  a  high  spirit  of  devotion, 
their  methods  at  best  were  not  those  which  modern  Christianity 
regards  as  illustrative  of  the  Gospel,  and  their  conduct  was 
disgraced  throughout  by  quarrels,  divided  motives,  and  low 
standards  of  personal  conduct.  Whpnjfrpir  indirect  resists  are 
examinerlj  however ;  a  ^zery  different  estimate  is  taJba-mad^-of 
orth.  Civilization  is  the  result  of  so  complex  factors 


RESULTS  OF  THE  CRUSADES  245 

that  it  is  hard  to  assign  precise  values  to  single  causes.  Europe 
would  have  made  progress  during  this  period  had  there  been  no 
Crusades.  But  the  changes  wrought  are  so  remarkable  that 
the  conclusion  is  unavoidable  that  the  largest  single  influence 
was  that  of  thd  Crusades. 

Itiie  commerce  which  the  Crusades  stimulated  the  cities 
and  of  the  great  trade  route  over 


and  down  the_J]hinp  r'.>s^  t"  impnrtanpp  JBy  the  sacrifices  of 
feudal  lands  and  property  which  they  involved,  a  new  political 
element,  that__oi.Jhglowns—  a  "  third  estate  "—was  preatlv 
stimulated,  esp^iallyJnFrance.  Thgjmpntal  horizon  of  the 

Thousands  who 


iVnorance  and  narrow-mindedness 


were 

civilization  of  the  East.  Kveryw^pr^ 
awakening.  Thf  period  wit,npgse^  —  the  —  highest  theological 
development,  of  the  Middle  A  UPS  —  that  of  Scholasticism.  It 
beheld  great  popular  religious  movements,  in  and  outside  of 
the  church.  It  saw  the  development  of  the  universities.  In  it 
the  study_  of  RomarT  law  became  a  transforming  influence. 
Modem  vernacular  literaturej)egan  to  flourish.  A-great  artis- 
tic_develoipmerit,  the  national  architecture  of  northern  France, 
misnamed  the'  Gothic,  now  ran  its  glorious  career.  The  Europe 
of  the  period  of  the  Crusades  wras  awake  and  enlightened  com 
pared  with  the  centuries  which  had  gone  before.  Admitting 
that  the  Crusades  were  but  one  factor  in  this  result,  they  were 
worth  all  their  cost. 

SECTION   II.      NEW  RELIGIOUS  MOVEMENTS 

The  epoch  of  the  First  Crusade  was  one  of  increasing  religious 
earnestness,  manifesting  itself  in  other-worldliness,  asceticism, 
mystical  piety,  and  emphasis  on  the  monastic  life.  The  long 
battle  against  simony  and  Nicolaitanism  had  turned  popular 
sympathies  from  the  often  criticised  "secular,"  or  ordinary 
clergy,  to  the  monks  as  the  true  representatives  of  the  religious 
ideal.  Cluny  had,  in  a  measure,  spent  its  force.  Its  very 
success  had  led  to  luxury  of  living.  New  religious  associations 
were  arising,  of  which  the  most  important  was  that  of  the 
Cistercians  —  an  order  which  dominated  the  twelfth  century 
as  Cluny  had  the  eleventh. 


246  THE  CISTERCIANS.    BERNARD 

Like  Cluny,  the  Cistercians  were  of  French  origin.  A  Bene 
dictine  monk,  Robert,  of  the  monastery  of  Montier,  impressed 
with  the  ill-discipline  of  contemporary  monasticism,  founded  a 
monastery  of  great  strictness  in  Citeaux,  not  far  from  Dijon, 
in  1098.  From  the  first,  the  purpose  of  the  foundation  of 
Citeaux  was  to  cultivate  a  strenuous,  self-denying  life.  Its 
buildings,  utensils,  even  the  surroundings  of  worship,  were  of 
the  plainest  character.  In  food  and  clothing  it  exercised  great 
austerity.  Its  rule  was  that  of  Benedict,  but  its  self-denial 
was  far  beyond  that  of  Benedictines  generally.  Under  its  third 
abbot,  Stephen  Harding  (1109-1134),  an  Englishman,  the  sig 
nificance  of  Citeaux  rapidly  grew.  Four  affiliated  monasteries 
were  founded  by  1115,  under  his  leadership.  Thenceforth  its 
progress  was  rapid  throughout  all  the  West.  By  1130,  the 
Cistercian  houses  numbered  thirty;  by  1168,  two  hundred  and 
eighty-eight,  and  a  century  later  six  hundred  and  seventy-one. 
Over  all  these  the  abbot  of  Citeaux  had  authority,  assisted  by 
a  yearly  assembly  of  the  heads  of  the  affiliated  monasteries. 
Much  attention  was  devoted  to  agriculture,  relatively  little  to 
teaching  or  pastoral  work.  The  ideals  were  withdrawal  from  the 
world,  contemplation,  and  imitation  of  "  apostolic  poverty." 

Not  a  little  of  the  early  success  of  the  Cistercians  was  due  to 
the  influence  of  Bernard  (1090-1153),  the  greatest  religious  force 
of  his  age,  and,  by  common  consent,  deemed  one  of  the  chief 
of  mediaeval  saints.  Born  of  knightly  ancestry  in  Fontaines, 
near  Dijon,  he  inherited  from  his  mother  a  deeply  religious 
nature.  With  some  thirty  companions,  the  fruit  of  his  powers 
of  persuasion,  he  entered  the  monastery  of  Citeaux,  probably 
in  1112.  Thence  he  went  forth  in  1115  to  found  the  Cistercian 
monastery  of  Clairvaux,  abbot  of  which  he  remained,  in  spite 
of  splendid  offers  of  ecclesiastical  preferment,  till  his  death.  A 
man  of  the  utmost  self-consecration,  his  prime  motive  was  a  love 
to  Christ,  which  in  spite  of  extreme  monastic  self-mortification, 
found  so  evangelical  an  expression  as  to  win  the  hearty  approval 
of  Luther  and  Calvin.  The  mystic  contemplation  of  Christ 
was  his  highest  spiritual  joy.  It  determined  not  merely  his 
own  type  of  piety,  but  very  largely  that  of  the  age  in  its  nobler 
expressions.  Above  all,  men  admired  in  Bernard  a  moral  force, 
a  consistency  of  character,  which  added  weight  to  all  that  he 
said  and  did. 

Bernard  was  far  too  much  a  man  of  action  to  be  confined 


BERNARD  247 

to  the  monastery.  The  first  preacher  of  his  age,  and  one  of 
the  greatest  of  all  ages,  he  moved  his  fellows  profoundly,  from 
whatever  social  class  they  might  come.  He  conducted  a  vast 
correspondence  on  the  problems  of  the  time.  The  interests  of 
the  church,  ofy  which  he  was  regarded  as  the  most  eminent 
ornament,  led  to  wide  journeyings.  In  particular,  the  healing 
of  the  papal  schism  which  resulted  in  the  double  choice  by  the 
cardinals  in  1130  of  Innocent  II  (1130-1143)  and  Anacletus  II 
(1130-1138)  was  Bernard's  work.  His  dominating  part  in 
organizing  the  unfortunate  Second  Crusade  has  already  been 
considered  (ante,  p.  242).  His  influence  with  the  papacy  seemed 
but  confirmed  when  a  former  monk  of  Clairvaux  was  chosen 
as  Eugene  III  (1145-1153),  though  many  things  that  Eugene 
did  proved  not  to  Bernard's  liking.  Convinced  that  his  own 
views  were  the  only  orthodox  conceptions,  he  persuaded  others, 
also,  and  secured  the  condemnation  of  Abelard  (p.  265)  by  the 
synod  of  Sens  in  1141,  and  its  approval  by  the  Pope.  In  1145 
Bernard  preached,  with  some  temporary  success,  to  the  heretics 
of  southern  France.  In  1153  he  died,  the  best  known  and  the 
most  widely  mourned  man  of  his  age. 

Bernard's  ascetic  and  other-worldly  principles  were  repre 
sented,  curiously,  in  a  man  whom  he  bitterly  opposed — Arnold 
of  Brescia  (?-1155).  With  all  his  devotion  to  "apostolic 
poverty,"  Bernard  had  no  essential  quarrel  with  the  hierarchical 
organization  of  his  day,  or  hostility  to  its  exercise  of  power 
in  worldly  matters.  Arnold  was  much  more  radical.  Born 
in  Brescia,  a  student  in  France,  he  became  a  clergyman  in  his 
native  city.  Of  severe  austerity,  he  advanced  the  opinion  that 
the  clergy  should  abandon  all  property  and  worldly  power. 
So  only  could  they  be  Christ's  true  disciples.  In  the  struggle 
between  Innocent  II  and  Anacletus  II  he  won  a  large  following 
in  Brescia,  but  was  compelled  to  seek  refuge  in  France,  where 
he  became  intimate  with  Abelard,  and  was  joined  with  him  in 
condemnation,  at  Bernard's  instigation,  by  the  synod  of  Sens 
(1141).  Bernard  secured  Arnold's  expulsion  from  France. 
In  1143  the  Roman  nobles  had  thrown  off  the  temporal  control 
of  the  papacy  and  established  what  they  believed  to  be  a 
revival  of  the  Senate.  To  Rome  Arnold  went.  He  was  not 
a  political  leader  so  much  as  a  preacher  of  "apostolic  poverty." 
In  1145  Eugene  III  restored  Arnold  to  church  fellowship,  but 
by  1147,  Arnold  and  the  Romans  had  driven  Eugene  out  of 


248  RADICAL  REFORMERS 

the  city.  There  Arnold  remained  influential  till  the  accession 
of  the  vigorous  Hadrian  IV  (1154-1159) — the  only  English 
man  who  has  ever  occupied  the  papal  throne.  Hadrian,  in 
1155,  compelled  the  Romans  to  expel  Arnold  by  proclaiming 
an  interdict  forbidding  religious  services  in  the  city ;  and  bar 
gained  with  the  new  German  sovereign,  Frederick  Barbarossa 
(1152-1190),  for  the  destruction  of  Arnold  as  the  price  of  im 
perial  coronation.  In  1155  Arnold  was  hanged  and  his  body 
burned.  Though  charged  with  heresy,  these  accusations  are 
vague  and  seem  to  have  had  little  substance.  Arnold's  real 
offense  was  his  attack  upon  the  riches  and  temporal  power  of 
the  church. 

Far  more  radical  had  been  a  preacher  in  southern  France, 
in  the  opening  years  of  the  twelfth  century — Peter  of  Bruys, 
of  whose  origin  or  early  life  little  is  known.  With  a  strict  as 
ceticism  he  combined  the  denial  of  infant  baptism,  the  rejec 
tion  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  any  form,  the  repudiation  of  all 
ceremonies  and  even  of  church  buildings,  and  the  rejection  of 
the  cross,  which  should  be  condemned  rather  than  honored 
as  the  instrument  through  which  Christ  had  suffered.  Peter 
also  opposed  prayers  for  the  dead.  Having  burned  crosses 
in  St.  Gilles,  he  was  himself  burned  by  the  mob  at  an  uncertain 
date,  probably  between  1120  and  1130.  Reputed  to  be  Peter's 
disciple,  but  hardly  so  to  be  regarded  was  Henry,  called  "of 
Lausanne,"  once  a  Benedictine  monk,  who  preached,  with  large 
following,  from  1101  till  his  death  after  1145,  in  western  and 
especially  southern  France.  Above  all,  a  preacher  of  ascetic 
righteousness,  he  denied  in  ancient  Donatist  spirit  the  validity 
of  sacraments  administered  by  unworthy  priests.  His  test  of 
worthiness  was  ascetic  life  and  apostolic  poverty.  By  this 
standard  he  condemned  the  wealthy  and  power-seeking  clergy. 
Arnold,  Peter,  and  Henry  have  been  proclaimed  Protestants 
before  the  Reformation.  To  do  so  is  to  misunderstand  them. 
Their  conception  of  salvation  was  essentially  mediaeval.  They 
carried  to  a  radical  extreme  a  criticism  of  the  worldly  aspects 
of  clerical  life  which  was  widely  shared  and  had  its  more  con 
servative  manifestation  in  the  life  and  teachings  of  Bernard. 


THE  CATHARI  249 

SECTION    III.      ANTICHURCHLY   SECTS.      CATHARI   AND   WAL- 
DENSES.      THE   INQUISITION 

The  Manichseism  of  the  later  Roman  Empire,  of  which 
Augustine  was f  once  an  adherent  (ante,  pp.  107,  176),  seems 
never  absolutely  to  have  died  out  in  the  West.  It  was  stimu 
lated  by; the  accession  of  Paulicians  and  Bogomiles  (ante,  p.  235) 
whom  the  persecuting  policy  of  the  Eastern  Emperors  drove 
from  Bulgaria,  and  by  the  new  intercourse  with  the  East  fos 
tered  by  the  Crusades.  The  result  was  a  new  Manichseism. 
Its  adherents  were  called  Cathari,  as  the  "Pure,"  or  Albigenses, 
from  Albi,  one  of  their  chief  seats  in  southern  France.  With  the 
ascetic  and  enthusiastic  impulse  which  caused  and  accompanied 
the  Crusades,  the  Cathari  rose  to  great  activity.  Though 
to  be  found  in  many  parts  of  Europe,  their  chief  regions  were 
southern  France,  northern  Italy,  and  northern  Spain.  In 
southern  France,  Bernard  himself  labored  in  vain  for  their  con 
version.  \Vith  the  criticism  of  existing  churchly  conditions 
consequent  upon  the  disastrous  failure  of  the  Second  Crusade 
(ante,  p.  242),  they  multiplied  with  great  rapidity.  In  1167 
they  were  able  to  hold  a  widely  attended  council  in  St.  Felix 
de  Caraman,  near  Toulouse ;  and  before  the  end  of  the  century 
they  had  won  the  support  of  a  large  section,  possibly  a  majority, 
of  the  population  of  southern  France  and  the  protection  of  its 
princes.  In  northern  Italy  they  were  very  numerous.  The 
Cathari  in  Florence  alone  in  1228  counted  nearly  one-third  of 
the  inhabitants.  By  the  year  1200  they  were  an  exceeding  peril 
for  the  Roman  Church.  In  the  movement  the  ascetic  spirit 
of  the  age  found  full  expression,  and  criticism  of  the  wealth 
and  power  of  the  church  saw  satisfaction  in  complete  rejection 
of  its  clergy  and  claims. 

Like  the  ancient  Manichses,  the  Cathari  were  dualists.  The 
Bogomiles  and  many  of  the  Cathari  of  Italy  held  that  the  good 
God  had  two  sons,  Satanel  and  Christ — of  whom  the  elder  re 
belled  and  became  the  leader  of  evil.  The  Cathari  of  France 
generally  asserted  two  eternal  powers,  the  one  good,  the  other 
malign.  All  agreed  that  this  visible  world  is  the  work  of  the 
evil  power,  in  which  souls,  taken  prisoners  from  the  realm  of 
the  good  God,  are  held  in  bondage.  The  greatest  of  sins,  the 
original  sin  of  Adam  and  Eve,  is  human  reproduction,  whereby 
the  number  of  prison-houses  is  increased.  Salvation  is  by  re- 


250  THE  CATHARI 

pentance,  asceticism,  and  the  "consolation."  This  rite,  like 
baptism  in  the  church,  works  forgiveness  of  sins  and  restora 
tion  to  the  kingdom  of  the  good  God.  It  is  conferred  by  laying 
on  of  hands  by  one  who  has  received  it,  together  with  placing 
the  Gospel  of  John  on  the  head  of  the  candidate.  It  is  the 
true  apostolical  succession.  One  who  has  received  the  "con 
solation"  becomes  perfect,  a  perfectus;  but  lest  he  lose  the  grace, 
he  must  henceforth  eschew  marriage,  avoid  oaths,  war,  posses 
sion  of  property,  and  the  eating  of  meat,  milk,  or  eggs,  since  they 
are  the  product  of  the  sin  of  reproduction.  The  "perfect," 
or,  as  they  were  called  in  France,  the  bons  hommes — good  men — 
were  the  real  clergy  of  the  Cathari,  and  there  are  notices  of 
"bishops"  and  even  of  a  "Pope"  among  them,  though  exactly 
what  the  gradations  in  authority  were  it  is  impossible  to  say. 
By  a  convenient  belief  the  majority  of  adherents,  the  credenti 
or  "believers,"  were  allowed  to  marry,  hold  property,  and  en 
joy  the  good  things  of  this  world,  even  outwardly  to  conform 
to  the  Roman  Church,  assured  that,  should  they  receive  the 
"consolation"  before  death,  they  would  be  saved.  Those  who 
died  unconsoled  would,  in  the  opinion  of  most  of  the  Cathari, 
be  reincarnated  in  human,  or  even  animal,  bodies  till  at  last 
they,  too,  should  be  brought  to  salvation.  The  "believers" 
seem  not  always  to  have  been  fully  initiated  into  the  tenets  of 
the  system. 

The  Cathari  made  great  use  of  Scripture,  which  they  trans 
lated  and  in  which  they  claimed  to  find  their  teachings.  Some 
rejected  the  Old  Testament  entirely  as  the  work  of  the  evil 
power,  others  accepted  the  Psalms  and  the  prophets.  All  be 
lieved  the  New  Testament  to  come  from  the  good  God.  Since 
all  things  material  are  of  evil,  Christ  could  not  have  had  a  real 
body  or  died  a  real  death.  They  therefore  rejected  the  cross. 
The  sacraments,  with  their  material  elements,  were  evil.  The 
good  God  is  dishonored  by  the  erection  of  churches  built  and 
ornamented  with  material  creations  of  the  evil  power.  The 
services  of  the  Cathari  were  simple.  The  Scriptures  were 
read,  especially  the  Gospel  of  John,  as  the  most  spiritual  of 
all.  A  sermon  was  preached.  The  "believers"  then  knelt 
and  adored  the  "perfect"  as  those  indwelt  with  the  divine 
Spirit.  The  "perfect,"  in  turn,  gave  their  blessing.  Only  the 
Lord's  Prayer  was  used  in  the  service.  A  common  meal,  at 
which  the  bread  was  consecrated,  was  held  in  many  places 


THE  WALDENSES  251 

once  a  month,  as  a  kind  of  Lord's  Supper.  The  student  of  the 
movement  will  find  in  it  extremely  interesting  survivals  of 
ancient  Christian  rites  and  ceremonies,  orthodox  and  heretical. 
In  general,  the  "perfect"  seem  to  have  been  men  and  women 
of  uprightness!  moral  earnestness,  and  courageous  steadfast 
ness  in  persecution.  Of  their  effectiveness  in  gaining  the  alle 
giance  of  thousands,  especially  from  the  humbler  walks  of  life, 
there  can  be  no  question. 

Unlike  the  Cathari,  the  Waldenses  originated  in  no  conscious 
hostility  to  the  church  and,  had  they  been  treated  with  skill, 
would  probably  never  have  separated  from  it.  In  1176  Valdez, 
or  Waldo,  a  rich  merchant  of  Lyons,  impressed  by  the  song  of 
a  wandering  minstrel  recounting  the  sacrifices  of  St.  Alexis, 
asked  a  master  of  theology  "the  best  way  to  God."  The  clergy 
man  quoted  that  golden  text  of  monasticism :  "  If  thou  wouldst 
be  perfect,  go,  sell  that  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou 
shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven;  and  come,  follow  Me."1  Val 
dez  put  this  counsel  literally  into  practice.  Providing  modestly 
for  his  wife  and  daughters,  he  gave  the  rest  of  his  means  to  the 
poor.  He  determined  to  fulfil  the  directions  of  Christ  to  the 
Apostles2  absolutely.  He  would  wear  the  raiment  there  desig 
nated.  He  would  live  by  what  was  given  him.  To  know  his 
duty  better  he  procured  a  translation  of  the  New  Testament. 
His  action  made  a  deep  impression  on  his  friends.  Here,  they 
thought,  was  true  "apostolic  poverty."  By  1177  he  was 
joined  by  others,  men  and  women,  and  the  little  company 
undertook  to  carry  further  Christ's  directions  by  preaching 
repentance.  They  called  themselves  the  "Poor  in  Spirit."  3 
They  now  appealed  to  the  Third  Lateran  Council,  in  1179,  for 
permission  to  preach.  The  council  did  not  deem  them  heret 
ical.  It  thought  them  ignorant  laymen,  and  Pope  Alexander 
III  (1159-1181)  refused  consent.  This  led  to  decisive  action. 
Valdez,  who  appears  in  what  is  known  of  his  later  history  as 
determined,  not  to  say  obstinate,  felt  that  this  refusal  was  the 
voice  of  man  against  that  of  God.  He  and  his  associates  con 
tinued  preaching.  As  disobedient,  they  were,  therefore,  ex 
communicated,  in  1184,  by  Pope  Lucius  III  (1181-1185). 

These  unwise  acts  of  the  papacy  not  only  forced  the  Wal 
denses  out  of  the  church  against  their  will,  they  brought  to 
them  a  considerable  accession.  The  Humiliati  were  a  company 

1  Matt.  1921.  2  Matt.  10.  3  Probably  from  Matt.  53. 


252  THE  WALDENSES 

of  lowly  folk  who  had  associated  themselves  for  a  common  life 
of  penance  in  and  about  Milan.  These,  too,  were  forbidden 
to  hold  separate  meetings,  or  to  preach,  by  Alexander  III, 
and  were  excommunicated  in  1184  for  disobedience.  A  very 
considerable  part  of  these  Lombard  Humiliati  now  joined  the 
Waldenses,  and  came  under  the  control  of  Valdez.  The  early 
characteristics  of  the  Waldenses  now  rapidly  developed.  Chief 
of  all  was  the  principle  that  the  Bible,  and  especially  the  New 
Testament,  is  the  sole  rule  of  belief  and  life.  Yet  they  read  it 
through  thoroughly  mediaeval  spectacles.  It  was  to  them  a 
book  of  law — of  minute  prescriptions,  to  be  followed  to  the 
letter.  Large  portions  were  learned  by  heart.  In  accordance 
with  what  they  believed  to  be  its  teachings  they  went  about, 
two  by  two,  preaching,  clad  in  a  simple  woollen  robe,  bare 
footed  or  wearing  sandals,  living  wholly  on  the  gifts  of  their 
hearers,  fasting  on  Mondays,  Wednesdays,  and  Fridays,  reject 
ing  oaths  and  all  shedding  of  blood,  and  using  no  prayers  but 
the  Lord's  and  a  form  of  grace  at  table.  They  heard  confes 
sions,  observed  the  Lord's  Supper  together,  and  ordained  their 
members  as  a  ministry.  As  unbiblical,  they  rejected  masses 
and  prayers  for  the  dead,  and  denied  purgatory.  They  held 
the  sacraments  invalid  if  dispensed  by  unworthy  priests.  They 
believed  prayer  in  secret  more  effective  than  in  church.  They 
defended  lay  preaching  by  men  and  women.  They  had 
bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  and  a  head,  or  rector,  of  the 
society.  The  first  was  Valdez  himself;  later  appointment 
was  by  election.  Besides  this  inner  circle,  the  society  proper, 
they  soon  developed  a  body  of  sympathizers,  " friends"  or  "be 
lievers,"  from  whom  the  society  was  recruited,  but  who  re 
mained  outwardly  in  communion  with  the  Roman  Church. 
Most  of  this  development  seems  to  have  been  immediately  sub 
sequent  to  their  excommunication  in  1184.  Much  of  it  was 
due  to  Catharite  example,  yet  they  opposed  the  Cathari  and 
justly  regarded  themselves  as  widely  different. 

Certain  conflicts  of  opinion,  and  a  feeling  that  the  govern 
ment  of  Valdez  was  arbitrary,  led  to  the  secession  of  the  Lom 
bard  branch  by  1210 — a  breach  that  attempts  at  reunion  in 
1218,  after  Valdez's  death,  failed  to  heal.  The  two  bodies 
remained  estranged.  The  able  Pope,  Innocent  III  (1198-1216), 
improved  these  disputes  by  countenancing  in  1208  the  organ 
ization  of  pauper es  catholici,  which  allowed  many  of  the  prac- 


CRUSADE  AGAINST  THE  CATHARI  253 

tices  of  the  Waldenses  under  strict  churchly  oversight.  Con 
siderable  numbers  were  thus  won  back  to  the  church.  Never 
theless,  the  Waldensian  body  spread.  Waldenses  were  to  be 
found  in  northern  Spain,  in  Austria  and  Germany,  as  well  as 
in  their  original  homes.  They  were  gradually  repressed,  till 
their  chief  seat  came  to  be  the  Alpine  valleys  southwest  of 
Turin,  where  they  are  still  to  be  found.  At  the  Reformation 
they  rea'dily  accepted  its  principles,  and  became  fully  Protes 
tant.  Under  modern  religious  freedom  they  are  laboring  with 
success  in  many  parts  of  Italy.  Their  story  is  one  of  heroic 
endurance  of  persecution — a  most  honorable  history — and  they 
are  the  only  mediaeval  sect  which  still  survives,  though  with 
wide  modification  of  their  original  ideals  and  methods. 

By  the  opening  of  the  thirteenth  century  the  situation  of  the 
Roman  Church  in  southern  France,  northern  Italy,  and  north 
ern  Spain  was  dubious.  Missionary  efforts  to  convert  Cathari 
and  Waldenses  had  largely  failed.  It  was  felt  that  sharper 
measures  were  needed.  A  crusade  was  ordered  as  early  as 
1181  by  Pope  Alexander  III  (1159-1181),  against  the  viscount 
of  Beziers  as  a  supporter  of  the  Cathari,  but  it  accomplished 
little.  Under  Innocent  III  (1198-1216)  the  storm  broke. 
After  having  vainly  tried  missionary  efforts,  the  murder  of  the 
papal  legate,  Peter  of  Castelnau,  in  1208,  induced  Innocent  to 
proclaim  a  crusade  against  the  heretics  of  southern  France. 
The  attack  was  agreeable  to  the  French  monarchy,  which  had 
found  the  nobles  of  the  region  too  independent  vassals.  These 
combined  interests  of  Pope  and  King  led  to  twenty  years  of 
destructive  warfare  (1209-1229),  in  which  the  power  of  the 
southern  nobles  was  shattered  and  cities  and  provinces  devas 
tated.  The  defenders  of  the  Cathari  were  rendered  impo 
tent  or  compelled  to  join  in  their  extermination. 

The  termination  of  the  struggle  was  followed  by  a  synod  of 
much  importance  held  in  Toulouse  in  1229.  The  Cathari  and 
Waldenses  had  made  much  use  of  the  Bible.  The  synod,  there 
fore,  forbad  the  laity  to  possess  the  Scriptures,  except  the 
psalter  and  such  portions  as  are  contained  in  the  breviary, 
and  especially  denounced  all  translations.  The  decree  was, 
indeed,  local,  but  similar  considerations  led  to  like  prohibitions 
in  Spain  and  elsewhere.  No  universal  denial  of  Bible  reading 
by  the  laity  was  issued  during  the  Middle  Ages. 

A  second  act  of  significance  which  marked  the  synod  of  Tou- 


254  THE  INQUISITION 

louse  was  the  beginning  of  a  systematic  inquisition.  The  ques 
tion  of  the  punishment  of  heretics  had  been  undetermined  in 
the  earlier  Middle  Ages.  There  had  been  a  good  many  instances 
of  death,  generally  by  fire,  at  the  hands  of  rulers,  churchmen, 
or  the  mob,  but  ecclesiastics  of  high  standing  had  opposed. 
The  identification  of  the  Cathari  with  the  Manichseans,  against 
whom  the  later  Roman  Emperors  had  denounced  the  death 
penalty,  gave  such  punishment  the  sanction  of  Roman  law. 
Peter  II  of  Aragon,  in  1197,  ordered  the  execution  of  heretics 
by  fire.  Pope  Innocent  III  (1198-1216)  held  that  heresy,  as 
treason  against  God,  was  of  even  greater  heinousness  than 
treason  against  a  King.  The  investigation  of  heresy  was  not 
as  yet  systematized.  That  task  the  synod  of  Toulouse  under 
took.  Its  work  was  speedily  perfected  by  Pope  Gregory  IX 
(1227-1241),  who  intrusted  the  discovery  of  heresy  to  inquisi 
tors  chosen  chiefly  from  the  Dominican  order — a  body  formed 
with  very  different  aims.  As  speedily  developed,  the  inquisi 
tion  became  a  most  formidable  organ.  Its  proceedings  were 
secret,  the  names  of  his  accusers  were  not  given  to  the  prisoner, 
who,  by  a  bull  of  Innocent  IV,  in  1252,  was  liable  to  torture. 
The  confiscation  of  the  convict's  property  was  one  of  its  most 
odious  and  economically  destructive  features,  and,  as  these 
spoils  were  shared  by  the  lay  authorities,  this  feature  undoubt 
edly  kept  the  fires  of  persecution  burning  where  otherwise  they 
would  have  died  out.  Yet,  thanks  to  the  inquisition,  and  other 
more  praiseworthy  means  shortly  to  be  described,  the  Cathari 
were  utterly  rooted  out  in  the  course  of  a  little  more  than  a 
century,  and  the  Waldenses  greatly  repressed.  This  earlier 
success  accounts,  in  large  measure,  for  the  tenacity  with  which 
the  Roman  Church  clung  to  the  inquisition  in  the  Reformation 
age. 

SECTION  IV.      THE  DOMINICANS  AND  FRANCISCANS 

The  Cathari  and  Waldenses  profoundly  affected  the  medi 
aeval  church.  Out  of  an  attempt  to  meet  them  by  preachers 
of  equal  devotion,  asceticism,  and  zeal,  and  of  greater  learning, 
grew  the  order  of  the  Dominicans.  In  the  same  atmosphere 
of  "apostolic  poverty"  and  literal  fulfilment  of  the  commands 
of  Christ  in  which  the  Waldenses  flourished,  the  Franciscans 
had  their  birth.  In  these  two  orders  mediaeval  monasticism 


DOMINIC  AND  THE  DOMINICANS  255 

had  its  noblest  exemplification.  In  Francis  of  Assisi  mediaeval 
piety  had  its  highest  and  most  inspiring  representative. 

Dominic  was  a  native  of  Calaroga,  in  Castile,  and  was  born 
in  1170.  A  brilliant  student  in  Palencia,  and  a  youth  of  deep 
religious  spirit,  *  he  becamo  a  canon  of  Osma,  about  ninety 
miles  northeast  of  Madrid.  From  1201  he  enjoyed  the  friend 
ship  of  a  ^kindred  spirit,  Diego  of  Acevedo,  the  bishop  of  Osma. 
The  two  journeyed  on  political  business  in  1203  through  south 
ern  France,  where  the  Cathari  were  then  in  the  height  of  their 
power.  There  they  found  the  Roman  missionaries  treated 
with  contempt.  At  a  meeting  with  these  missionary  leaders 
in  Montpellier,  in  1204,  Diego  urged  a  thorough  reform  of 
method.  Only  by  missionaries  as  self-denying,  as  studious  of 
"apostolic  poverty,"  and  as  eager  to  preach  as  the  "perfect" 
of  the  Cathari,  could  these  wanderers  be  won  back  to  the  Roman 
fold.  Moved  by  the  bishop's  exhortation,  the  missionaries 
endeavored  to  put  his  advice  into  practice.  A  nunnery,  chiefly 
for  converted  Catharite  women,  was  established  in  1206,  in 
Prouille,  not  far  from  Toulouse.  Thus  far  Diego  seems  to  have 
been  the  leader,  but  he  had  to  return  to  his  diocese,  and  died 
in  1207.  Thenceforward  Dominic  carried  on  the  work.  The 
storm  of  the  great  anti-Cathari  war  made  it  most  discouraging. 
Dominic  was  tempted  by  the  offer  of  bishoprics  to  leave  so 
thankless  a  task,  but  he  persisted.  He  would  take  the  Apostle 
Paul  as  his  model.  He  would  win  the  people  by  prea'ching. 
Gradually  he  gathered  like-minded  men  about  him.  In  1215 
friends  presented  them  a  house  in  Toulouse.  The  same  year 
Dominic  visited  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council  in  Rome,  seeking 
papal  approval  for  a  new  order.  It  was  refused,  though  his 
efforts  were  commended,  and  he  now  adopted  the  so-called 
"Rule"  of  St.  Augustine.  Recognition  amounting  to  the 
practical  establishment  of  the  order  was,  however,  obtained 
from  Pope  Honorius  III  (1216-1227)  in  1216. 

Even  in  1217,  when  the  new  association  numbered  but  a 
few,  Dominic  determined  to  send  his  preachers  widely.  With 
a  view  to  influencing  future  leaders,  he  directed  them  first  to 
the  great  centres  of  education,  Paris,  Rome,  and  Bologna. 
The  order  grew  with  amazing  rapidity.  Its  first  general  chap 
ter  was  held  in  Bologna  in  1220.  Here,  under  the  influence  of 
Franciscan  example,  it  adopted  the  principle  of  mendicancy— 
the  members  should  beg  even  their  daily  food.  By  this  chap- 


256  DOMINIC  AND  THE  DOMINICANS 

ter,  or  that  of  the  following  year,  the  constitution  of  the  "Or 
der  of  Preachers/'  or  Dominicans,  as  they  were  popularly  called, 
was  developed.  At  the  head  was  a  "master-general,"  chosen 
by  the  general  chapter,  originally  for  life.  The  field  was  di 
vided  into  "provinces,"  each  in  charge  of  a  "provincial  prior," 
elected  for  a  four-year  term  by  the  provincial  chapter.  Each 
monastery  chose  a  "prior,"  also  for  four  years.  The  general 
chapter  included  the  "master-general,"  the  "provincial 
priors,"  and  an  elected  delegate  from  each  province.  The 
system  was  one,  therefore,  that  combined  ingeniously  authority 
and  representative  government.  It  embraced  monasteries  for 
men,  and  nunneries  for  women,  though  the  latter  were  not  to 
preach,  but  ultimately  developed  large  teaching  activities. 

Dominic  died  in  1221.  The  order  then  numbered  sixty 
houses,  divided  among  the  eight  provinces  of  Provence,  Tou 
louse,  France,  Lombardy,  Rome,  Spain,  Germany,  and  Eng 
land,  and  for  years  thereafter  it  increased  rapidly.  Always 
zealous  for  learning,  it  emphasized  preaching  and  teaching, 
sought  work  especially  in  university  towns,  and  soon  became 
widely  represented  on  the  university  faculties.  Albertus  Mag 
nus  and  Thomas  Aquinas,  the  theologians ;  Eckhart  and  Tauler, 
the  mystics;  Savonarola,  the  reformer,  are  but  a  few  of  the 
great  names  that  adorn  the  catalogue  of  Dominicans.  Their 
learning  led  to  their  employment  as  inquisitors — a  use  that 
formed  no  part  of  Dominic's  ideal.  The  legends  which  represent 
him  as  an  inquisitor  are  baseless.  He  would  win  men,  as  did 
his  example,  Paul,  by  preaching.  To  achieve  that  result  he 
would  undergo  whatever  sacrifice  or  asceticism  that  would 
make  his  preachers  acceptable  to  those  whom  they  sought. 
Yet  it  is  evident  that  lowly,  self-sacrificing  and  democratic  as 
were  Dominic's  aims,  the  high  intellectualism  of  his  order 
tended  to  give  it  a  relatively  aristocratic  flavor.  It  represented, 
however,  an  emphasis  on  work  for  others,  such  as  had  ap 
peared  in  the  Waldenses.  Its  ideal  was  not  contemplation 
apart  from  the  world,  but  access  to  men  in  their  needs. 

Great  as  was  the  honor  paid  to  Dominic  and  the  Dominicans, 
it  was  exceeded  by  the  popular  homage  given  to  the  Francis 
cans,  arid  especially  to  their  founder.  The  austere  preacher, 
of  blameless  youth,  planning  how  he  may  best  reach  men,  and 
adopting  poverty  as  a  means  to  that  end,  is  not  so  winsome  a 
figure  as  that  of  the  gay,  careless  young  man  who  sacrifices  all 


FRANCIS  OF  ASSISI  257 

for  Christ  and  his  fellows,  and  adopts  poverty  not  as  a  recom 
mendation  of  his  message,  but  as  the  only  means  of  being  like 
his  Master.  In  Francis  of  Assisi  is  to  be  seen  not  merely  the 
greatest  of  mediaeval  saints,  but  one,  who  through  his  absolute 
sincerity  of  desire  to  imitate  Christ  in  all  things  humanly  pos 
sible,  belongs  to  all  ages  and  to  the  church  universal. 

Giovanni  Bernadone  was  born  in  1181  or  1182,  the  son  of  a 
cloth  merchant  of  Assisi,  in  central  Italy.  To  the  boy  the 
nickname  Francesco — Francis — was  given,  and  soon  sup 
planted  that  bestowed  on  him  in  baptism.  His  father,  a  seri 
ous  man  of  business,  was  little  pleased  to  see  the  son  leading 
in  the  mischief  and  revelry  of  his  young  companions.  A 
year's  experiences  as  a  prisoner  of  war  in  Perugia,  following  a 
defeat  in  which  he  had  fought  on  the  side  of  the  common  people 
of  Assisi,  against  the  nobles,  wrought  no  change  in  his  life.  A 
serious  illness  began  to  develop  another  side  of  his  character. 
He  joined  a  military  expedition  to  Apulia,  but  withdrew,  for 
what  reason  is  not  evident.  His  conversion  was  a  gradual  proc 
ess.  "  When  I  was  yet  in  my  sins  it  did  seem  to  me  too  bitter 
to  look  upon  the  lepers,  but  the  Lord  Himself  did  lead  me 
among  them,  and  I  had  compassion  upon  them.  When  I  left 
them,  that  which  had  seemed  to  me  bitter  had  become  sweet  and 
easy." l  This  note  of  Christ-like  compassion  was  that  to 
which  Francis's  renewed  nature  first  responded.  On  a  pil 
grimage  to  Rome  he  thought  he  heard  the  divine  command  to 
restore  the  fallen  house  of  God.  Taking  it  literally,  he  sold 
cloth  from  his  father's  warehouse  to  rebuild  the  ruined  church 
of  St.  Damian,  near  Assisi.  Francis's  father,  thoroughly  dis 
gusted  with  his  unbusinesslike  ways,  now  took  him  before  the 
bishop  to  be  disinherited;  but  Francis  declared  that  he  had 
henceforth  no  father  but  the  Father  in  heaven.  This  event 
was  probably  in  1206  or  1207. 

For  the  next  two  years  Francis  wandered  in  and  about  Assisi, 
aiding  the  unfortunate,  and  restoring  churches,  of  which  his 
favorite  was  the  Portiuncula,  in  the  plain  outside  the  town. 
There,  in  1209,  the  words  of  Christ  to  the  Apostles,2  read  in  the 
service,  came  to  him,  as  they  had  to  Valdez,  as  a  trumpet-call 
to  action.  He  would  preach  repentance  and  the  kingdom  of 

1  Testament  of  Francis.     Highly  illuminative  as  to  his  spirit  and  pur 
poses.     Robinson,  Readings,  1 :  392-395. 

2  Matt.  107-14. 


258  FRANCIS  OF  ASSISI 

God,  without  money,  in  the  plainest  of  garments,  eating  what 
might  be  set  before  him.  He  would  imitate  Christ  and  obey 
Christ's  commands,  in  absolute  poverty,  in  Christ-like  love,  and 
in  humbled  deference  to  the  priests  as  His  representatives. 
"The  Most  High  Himself  revealed  to  me  that  I  ought  to  live 
according  to  the  model  of  the  holy  Gospel."  Like-minded  as 
sociates  gathered  about  him.  For  them  he  drafted  a  "Rule," 
composed  of  little  besides  selections  from  Christ's  commands, 
and  with  it,  accompanied  by  eleven  or  twelve  companions,  he 
applied  to  Pope  Innocent  III  for  approval.  It  was  practically 
the  same  request  that  Valdez  had  preferred  in  vain  in  1179. 
But  Innocent  was  now  trying  to  win  some  of  the  Waldenses  for 
the  church,  and  Francis  was  not  refused.  The  associates  now 
called  themselves  the  Penitents  of  Assisi,  a  name  for  which,  by 
1216,  Francis  had  substituted  that  of  the  Minor,  or  Humbler, 
Brethren,  by  which  they  were  henceforth  to  be  known. 

Francis's  association  was  a  union  of  imitators  of  Christ,  bound 
together  by  love  and  practising  the  utmost  poverty,  since  only 
thus,  he  believed,  could  the  world  be  denied  and  Christ  really 
followed.  Two  by  two,  they  went  about  preaching  repentance, 
singing  much,  aiding  the  peasants  in  their  work,  caring  for  the 
lepers  and  outcasts.  "Let  those  who  know  no  trade  learn  one, 
but  not  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  the  price  of  their  toil,  but 
for  their  good  example  and  to  flee  idleness.  And  when  we  are 
not  given  the  price  of  our  work,  let  us  resort  to  the  table  of  the 
Lord,  begging  our  bread  from  door  to  door."  1  Soon  wide- 
reaching  missionary  plans  were  formed,  which  the  rapid  growth 
of  the  association  made  possible  of  attempting.  Francis  him 
self,  prevented  by  illness  from  reaching  the  Mohammedans 
through  Spain,  went  to  Egypt  in  1219,  in  the  wake  of  a  crusading 
expedition,  and  actually  preached  before  the  Sultan. 

Francis  himself  was  little  of  an  organizer.  The  free  associa 
tion  was  increasing  enormously.  What  were  adequate  rules 
for  a  handful  of  like-minded  brethren  were  soon  insufficient  for 
a  body  numbering  several  thousands.  Change  would  have 
come  in  any  event.  It  was  hastened,  however,  by  the  organiz 
ing  talents  of  Cardinal  Ugolino  of  Ostia,  the  later  Pope  Greg 
ory  IX  (1227-1241),  who  had  befriended  Francis,  and  whose 
appointment  Francis  secured  as  "protector"  of  the  society. 
Under  Ugolino's  influence,  and  that  of  Brother  Elias  of  Cortona, 

1  Testament. 


THE  FRANCISCANS  259 

the  transformation  of  the  association  into  a  full  monastic  order 
went  rapidly  forward.  From  the  time  of  Francis's  absence  in 
Egypt  and  Syria  in  1219  and  1220,  his  real  leadership  ceased. 
A  new  rule  was  adopted  in  1221,  and  a  third  in  1223.  In  the 
latter,  emphasis  f  was  no  longer  laid  on  preaching,  and  begging 
was  established  as  the  normal,  not  the  exceptional,  practice. 
Already,  jn  1219,  provinces  had  been  established,  each  in  charge 
of  a  "minister."  Papal  directions,  in  1220,  had  prescribed  obe 
dience  to  the  order's  officers,  established  a  novitiate,  a  fixed 
costume,  and  irrevocable  vows. 

Probably  most  of  these  changes  were  inevitable.  They  were 
unquestionably  a  grief  to  Francis,  though  whether  so  deeply  as 
has  often  been  contended  is  doubtful.  He  was  always  deferen 
tial  to  ecclesiastical  authority,  and  seems  to  have  regarded 
these  modifications  more  with  regret  than  with  actual  opposi 
tion.  He  withdrew  increasingly  from  the  world.  He  was  much 
in  prayer  and  singing.  His  love  of  nature,  in  which  he  was  far 
in  advance  of  his  age,  was  never  more  manifest.  Feeble  in 
body,  he  longed  to  be  present  with  Christ.  He  bore  what 
men  believed  to  be  the  reproduction  of  Christ's  wounds.  How 
they  may  have  been  received  is  an  unsolved,  and  perhaps 
insoluble,  problem.  On  October  3,  1226,  he  died  in  the  church 
of  Portiuncula.  Two  years  later  he  was  proclaimed  a  saint  by 
Pope  Gregory  IX.  Few  men  in  Christian  history  have  more 
richly  deserved  the  title. 

In  organization,  by  Francis's  death,  the  Franciscans  were 
like  the  Dominicans.  At  the  head  stood  a  "minister  general" 
chosen  for  twelve  years.  Over  each  "province"  was  a  "pro 
vincial  minister,"  and  over  each  group  a  "custos,"  for,  unlike 
the  Dominicans,  the  Franciscans  did  not  at  first  possess  houses. 
As  with  the  Dominicans,  provincial  and  general  chapters  were 
held  by  which  officers  were  chosen  and  legislation  achieved. 
Like  the  Dominicans,  also,  the  Franciscans  had  almost  from 
the  first,  their  feminine  branch — the  so-called  "second  order." 
That  of  the  Franciscans  was  instituted  by  Francis  himself,  in 
1212,  through  his  friend  and  disciple,  Clara  Sciffi  of  Assisi 
(1194-1253).  The  growth  of  the  Franciscans  was  extremely 
rapid,  and  though  they  soon  counted  many  distinguished 
scholars,  they  were  always  more  democratic,  more  the  order  of 
the  poor,  than  the  Dominicans. 

The  Dominicans  and  Franciscans,   known  respectively  as 


260  THE  TERTIARIES 

Black  Friars  and  Gray  Friars  in  England,  soon  exercised  an 
almost  unbounded  popular  influence.  Unlike  the  older  orders, 
they  labored  primarily  in  the  cities.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  their  work  resulted  in  a  great  strengthening  of  religion 
among  the  laity.  At  the  same  time  they  undermined  the  in 
fluence  of  the  bishops  and  ordinary  clergy,  since  they  were 
privileged  to  preach  and  absolve  anywhere.  They  thus 
strengthened  the  power  of  the  papacy  by  diminishing  that  of 
the  ordinary  clergy.  One  chief  influence  upon  the  laity  was 
the  development  of  the  "Tertiaries"  or  "third  orders" — a 
phenomenon  which  first  appeared  in  connection  with  the 
Franciscans,  though  the  tradition  which  connects  it  with 
Francis  himself  is  probably  baseless.  The  "third  order"  per 
mitted  men  and  women,  still  engaged  in  ordinary  occupations, 
to  live  a  semi-monastic  life  of  fasting,  prayer,  worship,  and  be 
nevolence.  A  conspicuous  illustration  is  St.  Elizabeth  of  Thu- 
ringia  (1207-1231).  Ultimately  all  the  mendicant  orders  de 
veloped  Tertiaries.  As  time  went  on  the  system  tended  to 
become  an  almost  complete  monasticism,  from  which  the  mar 
ried  were  excluded.  It  must  be  regarded  as  a  very  successful 
attempt  to  meet  the  religious  ideals  of  an  age  which  regarded 
the  monastic  as  the  true  Christian  life. 

The  piety  of  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  found  many 
expressions  other  than  through  the  Dominicans  and  Francis 
cans.  One  important  manifestation,  especially  in  the  Nether 
lands,  Germany,  and  France,  was  through  the  Beguines — associ 
ations  of  women  living  in  semi-monastic  fashion,  but  not  bound 
by  irrevocable  vows.  They  seem  to  have  received  their  name 
from  those  hostile  to  them  in  memory  of  the  preacher  of  Liege, 
Lambert  le  Begue,  who  was  regarded  as  having  been  a  heretic; 
and  the  Beguine  movement  undoubtedly  often  sheltered  anti- 
churchly  sympathizers.  It  was  in  the  main  orthodox,  however, 
and  spread  widely,  existing  in  the  Netherlands  to  the  present. 
Its  loose  organization  made  effective  discipline  difficult,  and, 
in  general,  its  course  was  one  of  deterioration.  A  parallel, 
though  less  popular,  system  of  men's  associations  was  that  of 
the  Beghards. 

The  divisions  in  the  Franciscan  order,  which  had  appeared 
in  Francis's  lifetime  between  those  who  would  emphasize  a 
simple  life  of  Christ-like  poverty  and  those  who  valued  numbers, 
power,  and  influence,  were  but  intensified  with  his  death.  The 


DIVISIONS  AMONG  THE  FRANCISCANS      261 

stricter  party  found  a  leader  in  Brother  Leo,  the  looser  in  Elias 
of  Cortona.  The  papal  policy  favored  the  looser,  since  ecclesi 
astical  politics  would  be  advanced  by  the  growth  and  con 
solidation  of  the  order  along  the  lines  of  earlier  monasticism. 
The  quarrel  became  increasingly  embittered.  The  use  of  gifts 
and  buildings  was  secured  by  the  laxer  party  on  the  claim  that 
they  wene  held  not  by  the  order  itself  but  by  "friends."  Pope 
Innocent  IV  (1243-1254),  in  1245,  allowed  such  use,  with  the 
reservation  that  it  was  the  property  of  the  Roman  Church,  not 
of  the  order.  These  tendencies  the  stricter  party  vigorously 
opposed.  But  that  party  itself  fell  into  dubious  orthodoxy. 
Joachim  of  Floris,  in  extreme  southern  Italy  (1145?-1202),  a 
Cistercian  abbot  who  had  been  reputed  a  prophet,  had  divided 
the  history  of  the  world  into  three  ages,  those  of  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  That  of  the  Spirit  was  to  come  in 
full  power  in  1260.  It  was  to  be  an  age  of  men  who  understood 
"the  eternal  Gospel" — not  a  new  Gospel,  but  the  old,  spiritu 
ally  interpreted.  Its  form  of  life  was  to  be  monastic.  In  the 
sixth  decade  of  the  thirteenth  century  many  of  the  stricter 
Franciscans  adopted  these  views  and  were  persecuted  not 
merely  by  the  laxer  element,  but  by  the  moderates,  who  ob 
tained  leadership  when  Bonaventura  was  chosen  general  min 
ister  in  1257.  These  stricter  friars  of  prophetic  faith  were 
nicknamed  "Spirituals."  Under  Pope  John  XXII  (1316-1334) 
some  of  the  party  were  burned  by  the  inquisition  in  1318. 
During  his  papacy  a  further  quarrel  arose  as  to  whether  the 
poverty  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  was  complete.  John  XXII 
decided  in  1322  in  favor  of  the  laxer  view,  and  imprisoned  the 
great  English  schoolman,  William  of  Occam,  and  other  asserters 
of  Christ's  absolute  poverty.  The  quarrel  was  irreconcilable, 
and  finally  Pope  Leo  X  (1513-1521)  formally  recognized  the 
division  of  the  Franciscans  in  1517  into  "Observant,"  or  strict, 
and  "Conventual,"  or  loose  sections,  each  with  its  distinct 
officers  and  general  chapters. 

SECTION   V.      EARLY  SCHOLASTICISM 

The  educational  work  of  cathedral  and  monastic  schools  has 
already  been  noted  in  connection  with  Bede,  Alcuin,  and  Hra- 
banus  Maurus  (ante,  pp.  200,  207,  210).  It  was  long  simply 
imitative  and  reproductive  of  the  teaching  of  the  Church  Fa- 


262       THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  SCHOLASTICISM 

thers,  especially  of  Augustine  and  Gregory  the  Great.  Save  in 
the  case  of  John  Scotus  Erigena  (ante,  p.  210),  it  showed  little 
that  was  original.  Schools,  however,  increased,  especially  in 
France  in  the  eleventh  century,  and  with  their  multiplication 
came  an  application  of  the  methods  of  logic,  or  of  dialectics, 
to  the  discussion  of  theological  problems  which  resulted  in 
fresh  and  fertile  intellectual  development.  Since  it  originated 
in  the  schools,  the  movement  was  known  as  "Scholasticism." 
Most  of  the  knowledge  of  dialectic  method  was  at  first  de 
rived  from  scanty  translations  of  portions  of  Aristotle's  writ 
ings  and  of  Porphyry's  Isagoge,  both  the  work  of  Boetius 
(480?-524). 

The  development  of  Scholasticism  was  inaugurated  and  ac 
companied  by  a  discussion  as  to  the  nature  of  "universals" 
— that  is  as  to  the  existence  of  genera  and  species — a  debate 
occasioned  by  Porphyry's  Isagoge.  Three  positions  might  be 
taken.  The  extreme  "realists,"  following  Platonic  influences 
(ante,  p.  3),  asserted  that  universals  existed  apart  from  and 
antecedent  to  the  individual  objects — ante  rem,  i.  e.,  the  genus 
man  was  anterior  to  and  determinative  of  the  individual  man. 
The  moderate  "realists,"  under  the  guidance  of  Aristotle  (ante, 
p.  4),  taught  that  universals  existed  only  in  connection  with 
individual  objects — in  re.  The  "nominalists,"  following  Stoic 
precedent,  held  that  universals  were  only  abstract  names  for 
the  resemblances  of  individuals,  and  had  no  other  existence 
than  in  thought — post  rem.  The  only  real  existence  for  them 
was  the  individual  object.  This  quarrel  between  "realism" 
and  "nominalism"  continued  throughout  the  scholastic  period 
and  profoundly  influenced  its  theological  conclusions. 

The  first  considerable  scholastic  controversy  was  a  renewal 
of  the  dispute  once  held  between  Paschasius  Radbertus  and 
Ratramnus  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  (ante,  p.  211).  Berengar  (?-1088),  head  of  the  cathe 
dral  school  in  Tours  about  1049,  attacked  the  prevalent  con 
ception  that  the  elements  are  changed  as  to  substance  into  the 
actual  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  His  position  was  essentially 
nominalist.  Berengar  was  immediately  opposed  by  Lanfranc 
(?-1089),  then  prior  of  the  monastery  of  Bee  in  Normandy, 
and  to  be  William  the  Conqueror's  celebrated  archbishop  of 
Canterbury.  Berengar  was  condemned  at  the  Roman  synod  of 
1050.  He  conformed  and  was  restored  in  1059.  About  ten 


ANSELM  263 

years  later  he  reasserted  his  opinions,  but  once  more  withdrew 
them  in  1079,  only  to  declare  them  again.  The  discussion 
showed  that  the  view  soon  to  be  known  as  "  transubstanti- 
ation"  had  become  the  dominant  opinion  in  Latin  Christen 
dom.  It  was  to  have  full  approval  at  the  Fourth  Lateran 
Council  in  1215,  where  it  was  given  the  highest  dogmatic 
standing. 

Berengar's  dialectic  methods  were  employed,  with  very 
dissimilar  results,  by  Anselm,  who  has  often  been  called  the 
Father  of  the  Schoolmen.  Born  in  Aosta  in  northern  Italy 
about  1033,  Anselm  became  a  monk  under  Lanfranc  in  Bee, 
whom  he  succeeded  as  prior.  Under  him  the  school  of  Bee 
attained  great  distinction.  In  1093  he  became  archbishop  of 
Canterbury — having  a  stormy  episcopate  by  reason  of  his 
Hildebrandian  principles.  He  died  in  office  in  1109.  As  a 
theologian,  Anselm  was  an  extreme  realist,  and  was  more 
over  convinced  of  the  full  capacity  of  a  proper  dialectic  to 
prove  the  truths  of  theology.  His  famous  ontological  demon 
stration  of^the  existence  of  God  is  at  once  realistic  and  Neo- 
Platonic.  As  set  forth  in  his  Proslogion,  God  is  the  greatest 
of  all  beings.  He  must  exist  in  reality  as  well  as  in  thought, 
for  if  He  existed  in  thought  only,  a  yet  greater  being,  existing 
in  reality  as  well  as  in  thought,  could  be  conceived;  which  is 
impossible./  This  proof,  which  aroused  the  opposition  of 
Gaunilo,  a  monk  of  Marmoutiers,  in  Anselm's  lifetime,  seems 
to  most  a  play  on  words,  though  its  permanent  validity  has 
not  lacked  defenders. 

Anselm  next  directed  his  attention  to  Roscelin,  a  canon  of 
Compiegne,  who,  under  nominalistic  influence,  had  asserted 
that  either  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  are  identical  or  are  three 
Gods.  At  a  synod  held  in  Soissons  in  1092  Roscelin  was  com 
pelled  to  abjure  tritheism.  Anselm  now  declared  that  nomi 
nalism  was  essentially  heretical,  and  that  view  was  the  preva 
lent  one  for  the  next  two  centuries. 

Anselm's  most  influential  contribution  to  theology  was  his 
discussion  of  the  atonement  in  his  Cur  Deus-Jiomo,  the  ablest 
treatment  that  had  yet  appeared.  Anselm  totally  rejected 
any  thought,  such  as  the  early  church  had  entertained,  of  a 
ransom  paid  to  the  devil.  Man,  by  sin,  has  done  dishonor  to 
God.  His  debt  is  to  God  alone.  Anselm's  view  is  feudal. 
God's  nature  demands  satisfaction.  Man,  who  owes  obedi- 


264  ANSELM  AND  ABELARD 

ence  at  all  times,  has  nothing  wherewith  to  make  good  past 
disobedience.  Yet,  if  satisfaction  is  to  be  made  at  all,  it  can 
be  rendered  only  by  one  who  shares  human  nature,  who  is 
Himself  man,  and  yet  as  God  has  something  of  infinite  value 
to  offer.  Such  a  being  is  the  God-man.  Not  only  is  His  sacri 
fice  a  satisfaction,  it  deserves  a  reward.  That  reward  is  the 
eternal  blessedness  of  His  brethren.  Anselm's  widely  influen 
tial  theory  rests  ultimately  on  the  realistic  conviction  that 
there  is  such  an  objective  existence  as  humanity  which  Christ 
could  assume. 

Anselm  was  of  devout  spirit,  fully  convinced  that  dialectic 
explanation  could  but  buttress  the  doctrines  of  the  church. 
"I  believe,  that  I  may  understand,"  is  a  motto  that  expresses 
his  attitude.  The  same  high  realist  position  was  maintained 
by  William  of  Champeaux  (1070  ?-1121),  who  brought  the  school 
of  St.  Victor,  near  Paris,  into  great  repute,  and  died  as  bishop 
of  Chalons. 

The  ablest  use  of  the  dialectic  method  in  the  twelfth  century 
was  made  by  Abelard  (1079-1142),  a  man  of  irritating  method, 
vanity,  and  critical  spirit,  but  by  no  means  of  irreligion.  Born 
in  Pallet,  in  Brittany,  he  studied  under  Roscelin  and  William 
of  Champeaux,  both  of  whom  he  opposed  and  undoubtedly  far 
surpassed  in  ability.  On  the  vexed  question  of  the  universals 
he  took  a  position  intermediate  between  the  nominalism  of  one 
teacher  and  the  realism  of  the  other,  though  leaning  rather  to 
the  nominalist  side.  Only  individuals  exist,  but  genera  and 
species  are  more  than  names.  Hence  he  is  usually  called  a 
"conceptualist,"  though  he  gave  universals  greater  value  than 
mere  mental  conceptions. 

Abelard 's  life  was  stormy.  By  the  age  of  twenty-two  he 
was  teaching  with  great  following  in  Melun,  near  Paris.  By 
1115  he  was  a  canon  of  Notre  Dame,  with  a  following  in  Paris 
such  as  no  lecturer  had  yet  enjoyed.  He  fell  in  love  with 
Heloise — the  niece  of  his  fellow  canon,  Fulbert — a  woman  of 
singular  devotion  of  nature.  With  her  he  entered  into  a  secret 
marriage.  The  enraged  uncle,  believing  his  niece  deceived, 
revenged  himself  by  having  Abelard  emasculated,  and  thus 
barred  from  clerical  advancement.  Abelard  now  became  a 
monk.  To  teach  was  his  breath  of  life,  however,  and  he  soon 
resumed  lecturing.  A  reply  to  Roscelin's  tritheism  leaned  so 
far  in  the  other  direction  that  his  enemies  charged  him  with 


ABELARD  265 

Sabellianism,  and  his  views  were  condemned  at  a  synod  in 
Soissons  in  1121.  His  criticisms  of  the  traditional  career  of 
St.  Denis  made  the  monastery  of  St.  Denis  an  uncomfortable 
place  of  abode,  and  he  now  sought  a  hermit's  life.  Students 
gathered  about?  him  and  founded  a  little  settlement  which  he 
called  the  Paraclete.  His  criticisms  had  aroused,  however,  the 
hostility,  of  that  most  powerful  religious  leader  of  the  age,  the 
orthodox  traditionalist  Bernard,  and  he  now  sought  refuge  as 
abbot  of  the  rough  monastery  in  Rhuys,  in  remote  Brittany. 
Yet  he  left  this  retreat  to  lecture  for  a  while  in  Paris,  and  en 
gaged  in  a  correspondence  with  Heloise,  who  had  become  the 
head  of  a  little  nunnery  at  the  Paraclete,  which  is  the  most  in 
teresting  record  of  affection — especially  on  the  part  of  Heloise 
— which  the  Middle  Ages  has  preserved.  Bernard  procured 
his  condemnation  at  the  synod  of  Sens  in  1141,  and  the  rejec 
tion  of  his  appeal  by  Pope  Innocent  II.  Abelard  was  now  a 
broken  man.  He  made  submission  and  found  a  friend  in  Peter, 
the  abbot  of  Cluny.  In  1142  he  died  in  one  of  the  monasteries 
under  Cluny  jurisdiction. 

Abelard 's  spirit  was  essentially  critical.  Without  rejecting 
the  Fathers  or  the  creeds,  he  held  that  all  should  be  subjected 
to  philosophical  examination,  and  not  lightly  believed.  His 
work,  Sic  et  non — Yes  and  No — setting  against  each  other 
contrary  passages  from  the  Fathers  on  the  great  doctrines, 
without  attempt  at  harmony  or  explanation,  might  well  arouse 
a  feeling  that  he  was  a  sower  of  doubts.  His  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  was  almost  Sabellian.  His  teaching  that  man  has  in 
herited  not  guilt  but  punishment  from  Adam  was  contrary  to 
the  Augustinian  tradition.  His  ethical  theory  that  good  and 
evil  inhere  in  the  intention  rather  than  in  the  act,  disagreed 
with  current  feeling.  His  belief  that  the  philosophers  of  an 
tiquity  were  sharers  of  divine  revelation,  howrever  consonant 
with  ancient  Christian  opinion,  was  not  that  of  his  age.  Nor 
was  Abelard  less  individual,  though  decidedly  modern,  in  his 
conception  of  the  atonement.  Like  Anselm,  he  rejected  all 
ransom  to  the  devil;  but  he  repudiated  Anselm's  doctrine  of 
satisfaction  no  less  energetically.  In  Abelard 's  view  the  in 
carnation  and  death  of  Christ  are  the  highest  expression  of 
God's  love  to  men,  the  effect  of  which  is  to  awaken  love  in  us. 
Abelard,  though  open  to  much  criticism  from  the  standpoint 
of  his  age,  was  a  profoundly  stimulating  spirit.  His  direct  fol- 


266  HUGO  AND  PETER  LOMBARD 

lowers  were  few,  but  his  indirect  influence  was  great,  and  the 
impulse  given  by  him  to  the  dialectic  method  of  theological 
inquiry  far-reaching. 

A  combination  of  a  moderate  use  of  the  dialectic  method  with 
intense  Neo-Platonic  mysticism  is  to  be  seen  in  the  work  of 
Hugo  of  St.  Victor  (1097?-1141).  A  German  by  birth,  his  life 
was  uneventful.  About  1115  he  entered  the  monastery  of  St. 
Victor,  near  Paris,  where  he  rose  to  be  head  of  its  school.  A 
quiet,  modest  man,  of  profound  learning  and  piety,  his  influence 
was  remarkable.  He  enjoyed  the  intimate  friendship  of  Ber 
nard.  Probably  his  most  significant  works  were  his  commen 
tary  on  the  Celestial  Hierarchy  of  Pseudo-Dionysius  the  Are- 
opagite  (ante,  p.  171)  and  his  treatise  On  the  Mysteries  of  the 
Faith.  In  true  mystic  fashion  he  pictured  spiritual  progress 
as  in  three  stages — cogitation,  the  formation  of  sense-concepts; 
meditation,  their  intellectual  investigation;  contemplation,  the 
intuitive  penetration  into  their  inner  meaning.  This  last  at 
tainment  is  the  true  mystical  vision  of  God,  and  the  compre 
hension  of  all  things  in  Him. 

No  original  genius,  like  Abelard  and  Hugo,  but  a  man  of 
great  intellectual  service  to  his  own  age,  and  held  in  honor  till 
the  Reformation,  was  Peter  Lombard,  "the  Master  of  the 
Sentences"  (?-1160?).  Born  in  humble  circumstances  in 
northern  Italy,  Peter  studied  in  Bologna  and  Paris,  in  part  at 
least  aided  by  the  generosity  of  Bernard.  In  Paris  he  became 
ultimately  teacher  of  theology  in  the  school  of  Notre  Dame, 
and  near  the  close  of  his  life,  in  1159,  bishop  of  the  Parisian 
see.  Whether  he  was  ever  a  pupil  of  Abelard  is  uncertain; 
but  he  was  evidently  greatly  influenced  by  Abelard's  works. 
Under  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  he  certainly  studied,  and  owed  that 
teacher  much.  Between  1147  and  1150  he  wrote  the  work  on 
which  his  fame  rests — the  Four  Books  of  Sentences.  After  the 
well-accustomed  fashion,  he  gathered  citations  from  the  creeds 
and  the  Fathers  on  the  several  Christian  doctrines.  What  was 
fresh  was  that  he  proceeded  to  explain  and  interpret  them  by 
the  dialectic  method,  with  great  moderation  and  good  sense, 
and  with  constant  reference  to  the  opinions  of  his  contempo 
raries.  He  showed  the  influence  of  Abelard  constantly,  though 
critical  of  that  thinker's  extremer  positions.  He  was  even  more 
indebted  to  Hugo  of  St.  Victor.  Under  the  four  divisions,  God, 
Created  Beings,  Salvation,  Sacraments  and  the  Last  Things, 


RISE  OF  THE  UNIVERSITIES  267 

he  discussed  the  whole  round  of  theology.  The  result  was  a 
handbook  which  so  fully  met  the  needs  of  the  age  that  it 
remained  till  the  Reformation  the  main  basis  of  theological 
instruction. 

Witn  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century  the  first  period  of 
Scholasticism  was  over.  The  schools  continued  in  increasing 
activity,  but  no  creative  geniuses  appeared.  The  last  half  of 
the  century  was  distinguished,  however,  by  the  introduction 
to  the  West,  which  had  thus  far  had  little  of  Aristotle,  of  the 
greater  part  of  his  works  and  of  much  Greek  philosophy  besides, 
by  the  Jews  of  Spain  and  southern  France,  who,  in  turn,  derived 
them  from  the  Arabs.  The  Latin  conquest  of  Constantinople, 
in  1204  (ante,  p.  243),  led  ultimately  to  direct  translations  from 
the  originals.  The  result  was  to  be  a  new  and  greater  out 
burst  of  scholastic  activity  in  the  thirteenth  century. 

SECTION  VI.      THE  UNIVERSITIES 

Cathedral  and  monastic  schools  were  never  more  flourishing 
than  in  the  twelfth  century.  Teachers  were  multiplying  and 
gathering  about  them  students.  Anselm,  Abelard,  William  of 
Champeaux,  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  and  Peter  Lombard  were  sim 
ply  the  most  eminent  of  a  host.  Students  flocked  to  them  in 
large  numbers  from  all  parts  of  Europe.  Paris  and  Oxford 
were  famed  for  theology,  Bologna  for  church  and  civil  law, 
Salerno  for  medicine.  Under  these  circumstances  the  univer 
sities  developed  in  a  manner  which  it  is  difficult  exactly  to  date. 
The  change  which  they  implied  was  not  the  establishment  of 
teaching  where  none  had  been  before,  but  the  association  of 
students  and  teachers  into  a  collective  body,  after  the  fashion 
of  a  trade  guild,  primarily  for  protection  and  good  order,  but 
also  for  more  efficient  management  and  the  regulation  of  ad 
mission  to  the  teaching  profession.  In  its  educational  capacity, 
such  a  group  was  often  called  a  studium  generate.  The  begin 
nings  of  university  organization — which  must  be  distinguished 
from  the  commencement  of  teaching — may  be  placed  about 
the  year  1200. 

By  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century  there  were  in  Bologna 
two  "universities,"  or  mutual  protective  associations  of  stu 
dents.  The  organization  in  Paris  became  normal,  however, 
for  northern  Europe.  Its  earliest  rules  date  from  about  1208, 


268  THE   UNIVERSITIES 

and  its  recognition  as  a  legal  corporation  from  a  letter  of  Pope 
Innocent  III  of  about  1211.  In  Paris  there  was  a  single  "uni 
versity,"  originally  formed  by  the  union  of  the  cathedral  school 
and  the  more  private  schools  of  the  city,  and  divided  for  in 
struction  into  four  faculties — one  preparatory,  that  of  the 
"arts,"  in  which  the  trivium  (grammar,  rhetoric,  and  logic) 
and  the  quadrivium  (astronomy,  arithmetic,  geometry,  and 
music)  were  taught;  and  the  three  higher  faculties  of  theology, 
canon  law,  and  medicine.  Over  each  faculty  a  dean  presided. 
Besides  this  educational  organization  students  and  professors 
were  also  grouped,  for  mutual  aid,  in  "nations,"  each  headed 
by  a  proctor.  These  varied  in  number  in  the  several  institu 
tions.  In  Paris  they  were  four — the  French,  the  Picards,  the 
Normans,  and  the  English. 

Teaching  was  principally  by  lecture  and  by  constant  debate, 
a  method  which,  whatever  its  shortcomings,  rendered  the  stu 
dent  ready  master  of  his  knowledge,  and  brought  talent  to 
light.  The  first  degree,  that  of  bachelor,  was  similar  to  an 
admission  to  apprenticeship  in  a  guild.  The  second  degree, 
that  of  master  or  doctor,  resembling  the  master  workman  in 
a  guild,  carried  with  it  full  authority  to  teach  in  the  institution 
where  it  was  conferred,  and  soon,  for  the  graduates  of  the 
larger  universities,  to  teach  anywhere.  The  use  of  Latin  as 
the  sole  language  of  the  classroom  made  possible  the  assembly 
of  students  from  all  parts  of  Europe,  and  they  flocked  to  the 
more  famous  universities  in  immense  numbers. 

The  needs  of  these  students,  many  of  whom  were  of  extreme 
poverty, '  early  aroused  the  interest  of  benefactors.  One  of 
the  most  influential  and  oldest  foundations  thus  established 
was  that  formed  in  Paris  by  Robert  de  Sorbon  (1201-1274)  in 
1252.  It  provided  a  home  and  special  teaching  for  poor  stu 
dents,  under  the  guidance  of  "fellows"  of  the  house.  Such 
establishments,  soon  known  as  "colleges,"  rapidly  multiplied, 
and  gave  shelter  to  the  great  majority  of  students,  rich  and 
poor.  The  system  still  survives  in  the  English  universities. 
So  prominently  was  the  Sorbonne  identified  with  theological 
instruction  that  its  name  came  to  be  popularly,  though  errone 
ously,  attached  to  the  faculty  of  theology  in  Paris.  That  uni 
versity  ranked  till  the  Reformation  as  the  leader  of  Europe, 
especially  in  the  theological  studies. 

Universities,  many  of  which  were  short-lived,   sprang  up 


THE  GREAT  SCHOOLMEN  269 

with  great  rapidity.  In  general,  they  were  regarded  as  eccle- 
siastieal — authorization  by  the  Pope  being  almost  essential. 
The  most  conspicuous  early  lay  approval  was  that  of  Naples, 
in  1225,  by  tli£  Emperor  Frederick  II. 

SECTION  VII.      HIGH  SCHOLASTICISM  AND  ITS  THEOLOGY 

The  recovery  of  the  whole  of  Aristotle,  the  rise  of  the  uni 
versities,  and  the  devotion  of  the  mendicant  orders  to  learning, 
ushered  in  a  new  period  of  Scholasticism  in  the  thirteenth  cen 
tury,  and  marked  the  highest  intellectual  achievement  of  the 
Middle  Ages.  The  movement  toward  this  "modern  theology," 
as  it  was  called,  was  not  without  much  opposition,  especially 
from  traditionalists  and  adherents  to  the  Augustinian  Neo- 
Platonic  development.  Aristotle  met  much  hostility.  A 
series  of  great  thinkers,  all  from  the  mendicant  orders,  made 
his  victory  secure.  Yet  even  they,  while  relying  primarily  on 
Aristotle,  made  much  use  of  Plato  as  reflected  in  Augustine 
and  the  Pseudo-Dionysius  (ante,  pp.  171,  266). 

To  Alexander  of  Haies  (?-1245),  an  Englishman  and  ulti 
mately  a  Franciscan,  who  taught  in  Paris,  was  due  the  treat 
ment  of  theology  in  the  light  of  the  whole  of  Aristotle.  Yet 
to  him  the  Scripture  is  the  only  final  truth.  With  this  new 
period  of  Scholasticism  a  broader  range  of  intellectual  interest 
is  apparent  than  in  the  earlier,  though  the  old  problem  between 
realism  and  nominalism  continued  its  pre-eminence.  Alex 
ander  was  a  moderate  realist.  Universals  exist  ante  rem  in 
the  mind  of  God,  in  re  in  the  things  themselves,  and  -post  rem 
in  our  understanding.  In  this  he  was  followed  by  Albertus 
Magnus  and  Aquinas. 

Albertus  Magnus  (1206?-1280),  a  German  and  a  Dominican, 
studied  in  Padua,  and  taught  in  many  places  in  Germany, 
but  principally  in  Cologne.  He  served  as  provincial  prior  for 
his  order,  and  was,  for  a  few  years,  bishop  of  Regensburg.  The 
most  learned  man  of  his  age,  his  knowledge  of  science  was  really 
remarkable.  His  acquaintance  not  merely  with  Aristotle,  but 
with  the  comments  of  Arabian  scholars,  was  profounder  than 
that  of  Alexander  of  Hales.  He  was,  however,  a  great  com 
piler  and  commentator  rather  than  an  original  theological 
genius.  That  which  he  taught  was  brought  to  far  clearer  ex 
pression  by  his  pupil,  Thomas  Aquinas. 


270  THOMAS  AQUINAS 

Thomas  Aquinas  (1225?-1274)  was  a  son  of  Landulf,  count 
of  Aquino,  a  small  town  about  half-way  between  Rome  and 
Naples.  Connected  with  the  German  imperial  house  of  Hohen- 
staufen  and  with  that  of  Tancred,  the  Norman  Crusader,  it 
was  against  the  wishes  of  his  parents  that  Thomas  entered  the 
Dominican  order  in  1243.  His  spiritual  superiors  were  aware 
of  his  promise,  and  sent  him  to  Cologne  to  study  under  Albertus 
Magnus,  who  soon  took  his  pupil  to  Paris.  On  receiving  the 
degree  of  bachelor  of  divinity,  Thomas  returned  to  Cologne  in 
1248,  and  now  taught  as  subordinate  to  Albertus  Magnus. 
These  were  years  of  rapid  intellectual  growth.  Entrance  into 
the  Paris  faculty  was  long  refused  him  on  account  of  jealousy 
of  the  mendicant  orders,  but  in  1257  he  was  given  full  standing 
there.  From  1261  for  some  years  he  taught  in  Italy,  then  once 
more  in  Paris,  and  finally,  from  1272,  in  Naples.  He  died,  on 
his  way  to  the  Council  of  Lyons,  in  1274.  In  these  crowded 
years  of  teaching  Thomas  was  constantly  consulted  on  im 
portant  civil  and  ecclesiastical  questions,  and  was  active  in 
preaching ;  yet  his  pen  was  busy  with  results  as  voluminous  as 
they  were  important.  His  great  Summa  Theologies  was  begun 
about  1265,  and  not  fully  completed  at  his  death.  Personally 
he  was  a  simple,  deeply  religious,  prayerful  man.  Intellectually, 
his  work  was  marked  by  a  clarity,  a.  logical  consistency,  and  a 
breadth  of  presentation  that  places  him  among  the  few  great 
teachers  of  the  church.  In  the  Roman  communion  Ms  influence 
has  never  ceased.  JSyldeclaratioji^Qf  ^Pope_Leo  XIIJ  (1878- 
1 903) ,  in_  1 871L_hi  a  work  -is-theJbasis.  _pj  pre_s_ejit_JJieoJogical 
instruction . 

Closely  associated  with  Aquinas  in  friendship  and  for  a  time 
in  teaching  activities  in  the  University  of  Paris,  was  John  Fi- 
danza  (1221-1274),  generally  known  as  Bonaventura.  Born  in 
Bagnorea,  in  the  States  of  the  Church,  he  entered  the  Franciscan 
order  in  1238,  rising  to  become  its  "general"  in  1257.  A  year 
before  his  death  he  was  made  a  cardinal.  Famed  as  a  teacher  in 
Paris,  he  was  even  more  distinguished  for  his  administration  of 
the  Franciscan  order  and  for  his  high  character.  Much  less 
an  Aristotelian  than  Aquinas,  he  was  especially  influenced  by 
the  Neo-Platonic  teachings  of  Augustine  and  Pseudo-Dionysius. 
He  was  essentially  a  mystic.  By  meditation  and  prayer  one 
may  rise  into  that  union  with  God  which  brings  the  highest 
knowledge  of  divine  truth.  Yet,  though  a  mystic,  Bonaven- 


AQUINAS'S  THEOLOGY  271 

tura  was  a  theologian  of  dialectic  ability  whose  work,  more 
conservative  and  less  original  than  that  of  Aquinas,  neverthe 
less  commanded  high  respect. 

According  tp  Aquinas,  in  whom  Scholasticism  attained Jts 

nobkst  development,  the  aim  of  a.11  tfipnfngipa.1  invagtifmiW^U 

to  give  knowledge  _qf God ^  and_^fjQiaji!^-origin-^and  destiny. 
Such  knowledge  comes  in  part  by_ceiison — natural  theology— 
but  the  attainments  of  reason  are  inadequate.  They  must  be 
augmented  by  revelation.  That  revelation  is  contained  in_the 
Scriptures,  which  are  the  only  final  authority ;  but  they  are  to 
be  understood  in  the  light  of  the  interpretations  of  the  councils 
and  the  Fathers — in  a  word,  as  comprehended  by  the  church. 
The  truths  of  revelation  cannot  be  attained  by  reason,  but  they 
are  not  contrary  to  reason,  and  reason  can  show  the  inade 
quacy  of  objections  to  them.  Aquinas  is  thus  far  from  sharing 
Anselm's  conviction  that  all  truths  of  Christianity  are  philo 
sophically  demonstrable;  but  he  holds  that  thei^e_£arjL_be_no- 
contradiction  between  philosophy jand ..theology,  since. both-axe 
from  God. 

In  treating  of  God  Aquinas  combined  Aristotelian  and  Neo- 
Platonic  conceptions.  He  is  the  first  cause.  He  is  pure  ac 
tivity.  He  is  also  the  most  real  and  perfect  of  existences. 
He  is  the  absolute  substance,  the  source  and  end  of  all  things. 
As  perfect  goodness,  God  does  always  that  which  He  sees  to 
be  right.  Jjejgarding  the  Trinity  ancL  the  person  of -Christ, 
Aquinas  stood  essentially  on  the  basis  of  Augustine  and  the 
Chalceojoman  formula  (ante,  p.  151). 

God  needs,  nothing,  and  therefore  the  creation  oithe-wocld 
was  an  expression  of  the  divine  love^which  He  bestows  on  the 
e^isj:encesTIe^trras  called  into  being.  God's  providence  ex 
tends  to  all  events,  and  is  manifested  in  the  predestination  of 
some  to  everlasting  life,  and  in  leaving  others  to  the  conse 
quences  of  sin  in  eternal  condemnation.  Aquinas's  position  is 
largely  determinist.  Man  has,  indeed,  in  a  certain  sense,  free 
dom.  His  will  acts ;  but  that  does  not  preclude  the  determin 
ing  or  permissive  providence  of  God.  The  divine  permission 
of  evil  results  in  the  higher  good  of  the  whole.  Though  sin  is 
no  less  sinful,  its  existence  permits  the  development  of  many 
virtues  which  go  to  make  strength  of  character  in  those  who 
resist. 

Aquinas  abandoned  the  ancient  distinction  between  "soul" 


272  AQUINAS'S  THEOLOGY 

and  "spirit."  The  soul  of  man  is  a  unit,  possessing  intellect 
and  will.  It  is  immaterial.  Man's  highest  good  is  the  vision 
and  enjoyment  of  God.  As  originally  created  man  had,  in 
addition  to  his  natural  powers,  a  superadded  gift  which  en 
abled  him  to  seek  that  highest  good  and  practise  the  three 
Christian  virtues — faith,  hope,  and  love.  This  Adam  lost  by 
sin,  which  also  corrupted  his  natural  powers,  so  that  his  state 
became  not  merely  a  lack  of  original  righteousness,  but  a  posi 
tive  turning  toward  lower  aims.  Sin  is,  therefore,  more  than 
merely  negative.  In  this  fallen  state  it  was  impossible  for 
Adam  to  please  God,  and  this  corruption  was  transmitted  to 
all  his  posterity.  Man  still  has  the  power  to  attain  the  four 
natural  virtues,  prudence,  justice,  courage,  and  self-control ; 
but  these,  though  bringing  a  certain  measure  of  temporal 
honor  and  happiness,  are  not  sufficient  to  enable  their  possessor 
to  attain  the  vision  of  God. 

Man's  restoration  is  possible  only  through  the  free  and  un 
merited  grace  of  God,  by  which  man's  nature  is  changed,  his 
sins  forgiven,  and  power  to  practise  the  three  Christian  virtues 
infused.  No  act  of  his  can  win  this  grace.  While  God  could 
conceivably  have  forgiven  man's  sins  and  granted  grace  without 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ — here  Aquinas  differed  from  Anselm — 
the  work  of  Christ  was  the  wisest  and  most  efficient  method 
God  could  choose,  and  man's  whole  redemption  is  based  on 
it.  That  work  involved  satisfaction  for  man's  sin,  and  Christ 
won  a  merit  which  deserves  a  reward.  It  also  moves  men  to 
love.  Aquinas  thus  developed  and  combined  views  presented 
by  Anselm  and  Abelard.  Christ's  satisfaction  superabounds 
man's  sin,  and  the  reward  which  Christ  cannot  personally  re 
ceive,  since  as  God  He  needs  nothing,  comes  to  the  advantage 
of  His  human  brethren.  Christ  does  for  men  what  they  can 
not  do  for  themselves. 

Once  redeemed,  however,  the  good  works  that  God's  grace 
now  enables  man  to  do  deserve  and  receive  a  reward.  Man 
now  has  power  to  fulfil  not  only  the  precepts  but  the  counsels 
of  the  Gospel  (ante,  p.  103).  He  can  do  works  of  supereroga 
tion,  of  which  the  chief  would  be  the  faithful  fulfilment  of  the 
monastic  life.  He  can  not  merely  fit  himself  for  heaven ;  he 
can  add  his  mite  to  the  treasury  of  the  superabundant  merits 
of  Christ  and  the  saints.  Yet  all  this  is  made  possible  only 
by  the  grace  of  God.  Aquinas  thus  finds  full  room  for  the 


AQUIXAS'S  THEOLOGY  273 

two   dominating   conceptions  of  mediaeval  piety — grace  and 
merit. 

Grace  does  not  come  to  men  indiscriminately.  It  has  its 
definite  channels  and  these  are  the  sacraments,  and  the  sacra 
ments  alone.  Here  Scholasticism  attained  far  greater  clearness 
of  definition  than  had  previously  existed.  The  ancient  feeling 
that  all  sacred  actions  were  sacraments  was  still  alive  in  the 
twelfth  century,  but  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  and  Abelard  clearly 
placed  five  in  a  more  conspicuously  sacramental  category 
than  others,  and  Peter  Lombard  defined  the  sacraments  as 
seven.  Whether  this  reckoning  was  original  with  him  is  still 
an  unsolved  problem ;  nor  was  it  at  once  universally  accepted. 
The  influence  of  his  Sentences  ultimately  won  the  day.  As 
enumerated  by  Peter  Lombard,  the  sacraments  are  baptism, 
confirmation,  the  Lord's  Supper,  penance,  extreme  unction, 
ordination,  and  matrimony.  All  were  instituted  by  Christ, 
directly  or  through  the  Apostles,  and  all  convey  grace  from 
Christ  the  head  to  the  members  of  His  mystical  body,  the 
church.  Without  them  there  is  no  true  union  with  Christ, 
/livery  sacrament  consists  of  two  elements  which  are  defined 
in  Aristotelian  terms  of  form  and  matter  (ante,  p.  4) — a  material 
portion  (water,  bread,  and  wine,  etc.) ;  and  a  formula  conveying 
its  sacred  use  ("I  baptize  thee,"  etc.).  The  administrant  must 
have  the  intention  of  doing  what  Christ  and  the  church  ap 
pointed,  and  the  recipient  must  have,  at  least  in  the  case  of 
those  of  years  of  discretion,  a  sincere  desire  to  receive  the 
benefit  of  the  sacrament.  These  conditions  fulfilled,  the  sacra 
ment  conveys  grace  by  the  fact  of  its  reception — that  is  ex 
opere  operate.  Of  this  grace  God  is  the  principal  cause;  the 
sacrament  itself  is  the  instrumental  cause.  It  is  the  means  by 
which  the  virtue  of  Christ's  passion  is  conveyed  to  His  members. 

By  baptism  the  recipient  is  regenerated,  and  original  and 
previous  personal  sins  are  pardoned,  though  the  tendency  to 
sin  is  not  obliterated.  Man  is  now  given  the  grace,  if  he  will 
use  it,  to  resist  sin,  and  the  lost  power  to  attain  the  Christian 
virtues.  Infant  baptism  had  become  the  universal  practice, 
but  in  the  time  of  Aquinas  immersion  was  still  the  more  preva 
lent  form,  and  had  his  approval. 

The  sole  recognized  theory  regarding  Christ's  presence  in 
the  Supper  was  that  which  had  been  taught  by  Paschasius 
Radbertus  (ante,  p.  211)  and  Lanfranc  (ante,  p.  262),  and  had 


274  AQUINAS'S  THEOLOGY 

been  known  since  the  first  half  of  the  twelfth  century  as  transub- 
stantiation.  It  had  been  given  full  dogmatic  authority  by  the 
Fourth  Lateran  Council  in  1215.  Aquinas  but  added  clear 
ness  of  definition.  At  the  words  of  consecration  by  the  priest 
the  miracle  is  wrought  by  the  power  of  God,  so  that  while  the 
"accidents"  (shape,  taste,  and  the  like)  remain  unaltered,  the 
"substance"  is  transformed  into  the  very  body  and  blood  of 
Christ. 

(Aquinas  also  accepted  and  developed  the  view  that  the  whole 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  present  in  either  element.  It  was 
far  from  original  with  him,  but  had  grown  with  the  increasing 
custom  of  the  laity  to  partake  of  the  bread  only.  A  withdrawal 
of  the  cup  instigated  by  the  clergy  did  not  take  place.  The 
abandonment  of  the  cup  was  rather  a  layman's  practice  due  to 
fear  of  dishonoring  the  sacrament  by  misuse  of  the  wine.  Such 
anxiety  had  manifested  itself  as  early  as  the  seventh  century 
in  the  adoption  of  the  Greek  custom  of  dipping  the  bread  in 
the  wine — a  practice  repeatedly  disapproved  by  ecclesiastical 
authority,  but  supported  by  lay  sentiment.  By  the  twelfth 
century  the  laity  were  avoiding  the  use  of  the  wine  altogether, 
apparently  first  of  all  in  England.  By  the  time  of  Aquinas 
lay  communion  in  the  bread  alone  had  become  prevalent. 
Similar  considerations  led  to  the  general  abandonment  by  the 
Western  Church,  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  of  the 
practice  of  infant  communion,  which  had  been  universal,  and 
which  continues  in  the  Greek  Church  to  the  present. 

Mediaeval  piety  and  worship  reach  their  highest  point  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.  It  is  the  continuation  of  the  incarnation,  the 
repetition  of  the  passion,  the  source  of  spiritual  upbuilding  to 
the  recipient,  the  evidence  of  his  union  with  Christ,  and  a  sac 
rifice  well  pleasing  to  God,  inclining  Him  to  be  gracious  to  those 
in  need  on  earth  and  in  purgatory. 

Penance,  though  not  reckoned  a  sacrament  of  equal  dignity 
with  baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  really  of  great,  if  not 
prime,  importance  in  mediaeval  practice.  Mediaeval  thought 
regarding  the  personal  religious  life  centred  about  the  two 
conceptions  of  grace  and  merit.  Baptism  effected  the  forgive 
ness  of  previous  sins ;  but  for  those  after  baptism  penance  was 
necessary.  The  Latin  mind  has  always  been  inclined  to  view 
sin  and  righteousness  in  terms  of  definite  acts  rather  than  as 
states,  and  therefore  to  look  upon  man's  relations  to  God  under 


AQUINAS'S  THEOLOGY  275 

the  aspects  of  debt  and  credit — though  holding  that  the  only 
basis  of  credit  is  the  effect  of  God's  grace.  These  tendencies 
were  never  more  marked  than  in  the  scholastic  period.  They 
represented  wide-spread  popular  views  which  the  schoolmen 
explained  theologically,  rather  than  originated. 
J  According  to  Aquinas,  penance  involves  four  elements,  con- 
Itrit  ion,  "confession,  satisfaction,  and  absolution.  Contrition  is 
sincere  sorrow  for  the  offense  against  God  and  a  determination 
not  to  repeat  it.  Yet  Aquinas  holds  that,  as  all  sacraments 
convey  grace,  a  penance  begun  in  "attrition,"  that  is,  in  fear 
of  punishment,  may  by  infused  grace  become  a  real  contrition. 

Private  confession  to  the  priest  had  made  gradual  progress 
since  its  advocacy  by  the  old  British  missionaries  (ante,  p.  197). 
Abelard  and  Peter  Lombard  were  of  opinion  that  a  true  con 
trition  was  followed  by  divine  forgiveness,  even  without  priestly 
confession,  though  they  thought  such  confession  desirable. 
The  Fourth  Lateran  Council,  in  1215,  required  confession  to 
the  priest  at  least  once  a  year  of  all  laymen  of  age  of  discretion. 
Such  confession  thereby  became  church  law.  Alexander  of 
Hales  argued  its  necessity,  and  Aquinas  gave  it  more  logical 
exposition.  It  must  be  made  to  the  priest  as  the  physician  of 
the  soul,  and  include  all  "deadly"  sins — the  catalogue  of  which 
was  now  much  larger  than  in  the  early  church  (ante,  p.  100). 

Though  God  forgives  the  eternal  punishment  of  the  penitent, 
certain  temporal  penalties  remain  as  a  consequence  of  sin. 
This  distinction  was  clearly  made  by  Abelard  and  became  the 
current  property  of  the  schoolmen.  These  temporal  penalties 
satisfy  the  sinner's  offense  against  God  so  far  as  it  is  in  his 
power  to  do  so.  They  also  enable  him  to  avoid  sin  in  the  future. 
They  are  the  "fruits  of  repentance."  It  is  the  business  of  the 
priest  to  impose  these  satisfactions,  which,  if  not  adequate  in 
this  life,  will  be  completed  in  purgatory. 

On  evidence  thus  of  sorrow  for  sin,  confession,  and  a  willing 
ness  to  give  satisfaction,  the  priest,  as  God's  minister  or  agent, 
pronounces  absolution.  Here,  then,  was  the  great  control  of 
the  priesthood  over  the  laity  till  the  Reformation,  and  in  the 
Roman  Church  to  the  present.  Without  priestly  pardon  no 
one  guilty  after  baptism  of  a  "deadly"  sin  has  assurance  of 
salvation. 

A  great  modification  of  these  satisfactions  was,  however, 
rapidly  growing  in  the  century  and  a  half  before  Aquinas.  A 


276  AQUINAS'S  THEOLOGY 

remission  of  a  portion  or  of  all  of  these  "temporal"  penalties 
could  be  obtained.  Such  remission  was  called  an  "  indulgence." 
Bishops  had  long  exercised  the  right  to  abridge  satisfactions  in 
cases  where  circumstances  indicated  unusual  contrition.  Great 
services  to  the  church  were  held  to  deserve  such  consideration. 
Peter  Damiani  (1007  ?-1072)  regarded  gifts  of  land  for  a  mon 
astery  or  a  church  as  affording  such  occasions.  These  did  not 
constitute  the  full  indulgence  system,  however.  That  seems 
to  have  originated  in  southern  France,  and  the  earliest,  though 
not  undisputed,  instance  is  about  the  year  1016.  Their  first 
conspicuous  employment  was  by  a  French  Pope,  Urban  II 
(1088-1099),  who  promised  full  indulgence  to  all  who  engaged 
in  the  First  Crusade,  though  Pope  Alexander  II  had  given 
similar  privileges  on  a  smaller  scale  for  battle  against  the  Sara 
cens  in  Spain  about  1063.  Once  begun,  the  system  spread 
with  great  rapidity.  Not  only  Popes  but  bishops  gave  indul 
gences,  and  on  constantly  easier  terms.  Pilgrimages  to  sacred 
places  or  at  special  times,  contributions  to  a  good  work,  such  as 
building  a  church  or  even  a  bridge  or  a  road,  were  deemed  de 
serving  of  such  reward.  The  financial  possibilities  of  the  sys 
tem  were  soon  perceived  and  exploited.  Since  "temporal" 
penalties  included  those  of  purgatory,  the  value  of  an  indulgence 
was  enormous,  though  undefined,  and  the  tendency  to  substi 
tute  it  for  a  real  penance  was  one  to  which  human  nature  readily 
responded. 

Such  was  the  practice  to  which  Aquinas  now  gave  the  classic 
interpretation.  Following  Alexander  of  Hales,  he  taught  that 
the  superabundant  merits  of  Christ  and  of  the  saints  form  a 
treasury  of  good  works  from  which  a  portion  may  be  transferred 
by  the  authority  of  the  church,  acting  through  its  officers,  to 
the  needy  sinner.  It  can,  indeed,  avail  only  for  those  who  are 
really  contrite,  but  for  such  it  removes,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
the  "temporal"  penalties  here  and  in  purgatory.  Indulgences 
were  never  a  license  to  commit  sin.  They  were  an  amelioration 
of  penalties  justly  due  to  sins  already  committed  and  regretted. 
But,  however  interpreted,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the 
moral  harmfulness  of  the  system,  or  that  it  grew  worse  till  the 
Reformation,  of  which  it  was  an  immediately  inducing  cause. 

At  their  deaths,  according  to  Aquinas,  the  wicked  pass  im 
mediately  to  hell,  which  is  endless,  and  from  which  there  is  no 
release.  Those  who  have  made  full  use  of  the  grace  offered  in 


DUNS  SCOTUS  277 

the  church  go  at  once  to  heaven.  The  mass  of  Christians 
who  have  but  imperfectly  availed  themselves  of  the  means  of 
grace  must  undergo  a  longer  or  shorter  purification  in  purga 
tory.  1 

The  church  is  one,  whether  in  heaven,  on  earth,  or  in  pur 
gatory.  ;  When  one  member  suffers,  all  suffer  ;  when  one  does 
well,  all  share  in  his  good  work.  On  this  unity  of  the  church 
Aquinas  bases  prayers  to  the  saints  and  for  those  in  purgatory. 
The  visible  church  requires  a  visible  head.  To  be  subject  to 
the  Roman  Pontiff  is  necessary  for  salvation.  To  the  Pope, 
also,  belongs  the  right  to  issue  new  definitions  of  faith,  and 
Aquinas  implies  the  doctrine  of  papal  infallibility. 

It  was  Aquinas's  good  fortune  that  his  philosophy  and  his 
theology  alike  found  a  hearty  disciple  in  the  greatest  of  medi 
eval  poets,  Dante  Alighieri  (1265-1321),  whose  Divina  Corn- 
media  moves,  in  these  respects,  almost  wholly  in  Aquinas's 
realm  of  thought. 

Aojiinas  was_j^nmiriiVa.n,  and  their  natural  rivalry  soon 
drew  upon  his  system  the  criticism  of  Franciscan  scholars, 
many  of  whom  were  of  English  birth.  Such  a  critic  was 
Richard  of  Middletown  (?-1300?);  but  the  most  famons-of 
all,  angLon£-nf  ^  grpn.fpst  nf  the-schoolmen,  w^as-lohn-Huas 
In  spite  of  his  name  he  appears  to  have 


been  an  Eriglishjnan.  Educatedjn  Oxford,  where  he  became 
its  most  famous  teacher,  hfi  remn'vftd_±Q  _Par4S~in-1304.  Four 
years  lajer  the  general  of  the  order  sentjiim  to  Cologne,  where 
he  died  justas  his  work  there  had  be^un.  The  keejiest-critic 
arid  the  ablest  diale^jciajXjoLjtlLthe  schoolmen,  he  -attacked 
the  worYof  Aquinas^vvith  the  utmost  acumen.  He  attained  a 
position  a~s  i  authoritative  teacher  in  the  Franciscan  order  simf 
ilar  to  that  of  Aquinas  in  the  Dominican,  and  the  theological 
rivalries  jof  the-Thomists  and-Scotists^ontinucd  to  rage-till^the 
Reformation. 

Aquinas  had,  held  that  the  essence  of  God  is  being.    Xo 
is  arbitrar    will.     The  will  in  God  and  man  is  free. 
did  what  He  saw  .to  be  right.    -To 


Scotus_what_God  wills_is^  right  by  the  mere  fact  of  willing. 
ThoughTTTke  AquinaTTScotus  was  a  modified  realist,  .he  laid 
CTiphasis  onthe  individual  rather  than  on  the  uniyjersal.     To 
Kim  theTncTTvi^ual  is  the  more  perfect  form. 
Since  God  is  absolute  will,  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  has  the  value 


278  DUNS  SCOTUS 

which  God  puts  upon  it.  Any  other  act  would  have  been  suffi 
cient  for  salvation  had  God  seen  fit  so  to  regard  it.  Nor  can 
we  say,  with  Aquinas,  that  Christ's  death  was  the  wisest  way 
of  salvation.  That  would  be  to  limit  God's  will.  All  we  can 
affirm  is  that  it  was  the  way  chosen  by  God.  Similarly,  Scotus 
minimized  the  repentance  necessary  for  salvation.  Aquinas 
has  demanded  contrition  or  an  "attrition"  —  fear  of  punish 
ment  —  that  by  the  infusion  of  grace  became  contrition.  Scotus 
held  that  "attrition"  is  sufficient  by  divine  appointment  to 
secure  fitness  for  pardon.  It  is  followed  by  forgiveness,  and 
that  by  the  infusion  of  grace  by  which  a  man  is  enabled  to'do 
certain  acts  to  which  God  has  been  pleased  to  attach  merit. 
The  sacraments  do  not  of  themselves  convey  grace,  but  are  the 
conditions  appointed  by  God  upon  which,  if  fulfilled,  grace  is 
bestowed. 

The  most  fundamental  difference  between  Aquinas  and  Scotus 
is  one  of  attitude.'  To  Aquinas  there  could  be  no  real  disagree 
ment  between  theology  and  philosophy,  however  inadequate 
the  latter  to  reach  all  the  truths  of  the  former.  To  Duns 
much  in  theology  is  philosophically  improbable,  yet  must  be 
accepted  on  the  authority  of  the  church.  The  breakdown  of 
Scholasticism  had  begun,  for  its  purpose  had  been  to  show  the 
reasonableness  of  Christian  truth. 

The  dispute  which  roused  the  loudest  controversy  between 
Thomists  and  Scotists  was  regarding  the  "immaculate  con 
ception"  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  Aquinas  had  taught  that  she 
shared  in  the  original  sin  of  the  race.  Scotus  held  that  she  was 
free  from  it  —  a  doctrine  that  was  to  be  declared  that  of  the 
church  by  Pope  Pius  IX  (1846-1878)  in  1854. 

Yet  more  radicaHn  his  divorce  of  philosophy  from  theojngy 
was  Scotus's  pupil^Wiliiam  orOccam  (7=1349?).  AnJEnglish 

mnst    parr^st  lype,    he 


taughtjin  Paris,  defendejd_±he-complete-^>¥er-ty  o£-Ghrist  and 
the  Apostles~agajnsjt  Pope  John  XXII  (ante,  p.  261),  Buffered 
ijy  to  escape_Jn  1328  and  Jind  refuge  with 


miy    o 

Louis  of  Bavaria^  jhgn  In  gnarrpl  wifTT  thp  Pgpp.    Por  the  rest 
qfjhis  life  he  defended  the  indepejgidejijre-^£4he-st^^ 
siastical  authority  witff  the  utmost  steadfastness. 

~  ~~~      "  Only  in- 


dividual  objects  exist.     Any  association  in  genera  or  species 
is  purely  mental,  having  no  objective  reality.     It  is  simply  a 


WILLIAM  OF  OCCAM  279 

use  of  symbolic  "terms."  Hence,  Occam  was  called  a  "termi- 
nist"  His  system  was  a  far  more  vigorous  and  destructive 
nominalism  than  that  of  Roscelin  (ante,  p.  263).  Yet  actual 
knowledge  of  things  in  themselves  men  do  not  have,  only  of 
mental  concepts.  This  denial  led  him  to  the  conclusion  that 
no  theological  doctrines  are  philosophically  provable.  They 
are  to  be  accepted — and  he  accepted  them — simply  on  author 
ity.  That  authority  he  made  in  practice  that  of  the  church; 
though  in  his  contest  with  what  he  deemed  a  derelict  papacy 
he  taught  that  Scripture,  and  not  the  decisions  of  councils  and 
Popes,  is  alone  binding  on  the  Christian.  No  wonder  that 
Luther,  in  this  respect,  could  call  him  "dear  master." 

Occam's  philosophical  vjgwB"gaTTred4arrpflsing  SWay  aft^E-his 
death.  From  thence  onward  till  just  before  the  Reformation 
nominalism  was^e_d6minant  theological  pnsitinn.  It  was  the 
bankruptcy  of  Scholasticism.  While  it  undoubtedly  aided  in 
vestigation  by  permitting  the  freest  (philosophical)  criticism  of 
existing  dogma,  itjbased  all  Christian  belief  on  arbitrary  au 
thority.  That  was  really  TcTundermine  theology,  for  men  do 
not  long  hold  as  true  what  is  intellectually  indefensible.  It 
robbed  of  interest  the  great  speculative  systems  of  the  older 
Scholasticism.  Men  turned  increasingly,  in  the  fourteenth 
and  fifteenth-centuries,  to  mysticjsgL  -QE-  relurneiLto  Augustine 
for  the  intellectual  and  religious  comfort  which  Scholasticism 
was  unable  longer  to  afford. 

SECTION  VIII.      THE  MYSTICS 

Besides  the  intellectual,  the  mystical  tendency  was  strongly 
represented  in  many  of  the  schoolmen.  Hugo  of  St.  Victor 
and  Bonaventura  may  as  rightly  be  reckoned  to  the  mystics 
as  to  the  scholastics.  Aquinas  showed  marked  mystic  leanings, 
derived  from  Augustine  and  the  Pseudo-Dionysius.  Aristotle 
never  wholly  conquered  Neo-Platonic  influences.  Neo-Plato- 
nism  itself  enjoyed  a  measure  of  revival  in  the  twelfth  and  thir 
teenth  centuries,  partly  through  the  strongly  Neo-Platonizing 
Arabian  commentaries  on  Aristotle,  but  even  more  through 
the  widely  read  Liber  de  Causis,  falsely  ascribed  to  Aristotle,  but 
containing  excerpts  from  the  Neo-Platonic  philosopher,  Pro- 
clus  (410-485),  and  ultimately  by  translations  directly  from 
Proclus's  accredited  works. 


280  ECKHART  AND  TAULER 

Air  ..important  ret>F4^euLtatLve  of  tin's  mystical  spirit 
" Mebter-'-LKckhart  ^3^1327)^  a,  German  Dominican,  who 
studied  in  Paris,  served  as  provincial  prior  of  the  Saxon  dis 
trict,  lived  for  a  time,. in  Strassburg.  and  tn light  in  Cologne 
At  th^QS£_oLhis4i£eJ£<^  for  heresy.  He 

himself  declared  his  readiness  to  submit  his  opinions  to  the 
judgment  of  the  church,  but  two  years  after  his  death  a  number 
of  his  teachings  wrere  condemned  by  Pope  John  XXII.  In 
true  Neo-Platonic  fashion  Eckhart  taught  that  that  which  is 
real  in  all  things  is  the  divine.  In  the  soul  of  man  is  a  spark 
of  God.  That  is  the  true  reality  in  all  men.  All  individual 
izing  qualities  are  essentially  negative.  Man  should,  therefore, 
lay  them  aside.  His  struggle  is  to  have  God  born  in  his  soulj 
that  is  to  enter  into  full  communion  with  and  to  come  under 
the  control  of  the  indwelling  God.  In  this  effort  Christ  is  the 
pattern  and  example,  in  whom  Godhead  dwelt  in  humanity  in 
all  fulness.  With  God  dominant  the  soul  is  filled  with  love 
and  righteousness.  Churchly  observances  may  be  of  some 
value,  but  the  springs  of  the  mystic  life  are  far  deeper  and  its 
union  with  God  more  direct.  Good  works  do  not  make  right 
eous.  It  is  the  soul  already  righteous  that  does  good  works. 
The  all-important  matter  is  that  the  soul  enters  into  its  full 
privilege  of  union  with  God. 

Perhaps  the  most  eminent  of  Eckhart's  disciples  was  John 
Tauler  (?-1361),  a  Dominican  preacher  who  worked  long  in 
Strassburg,  of  which  he  was  probably  a  native,  in  Cologne  and 
in  Basel.  The  times  in  Germany  were  peculiarly  difficult. 
The  long  contest  for  the  empire  between  Frederick  of  Austria 
and  Louis  of  Bavaria,  and  papal  interferences  therein,  wrought 
religious  as  well  as  political  confusion.  The  bubonic  plague  of 
1348-1349,  known  in  England  as  the  "black  death/'  devas 
tated  the  population.  To  his  distressed  age  Tauler  was  a 
preacher  of  helpfulness,  whose  sermons  have  been  widely  read 
ever  since.  In  them  are  many  "evangelical"  thoughts,  which 
aroused  the  admiration  of  Luther,  and  have  often  led  to  the 
claim  that  he  was  a  Protestant  before  Protestantism.  He 
emphasized  the  inward  and  the  vital  in  religion,  and  condemned 
dependence  on  external  ceremonies  and  dead  works.  His  real 
position  was  that  of  a  follower  of  Eckhart,  with  similar  mystic 
emphasis  on  union  with  the  divine,  on  "God  being  born  within," 
though  he  avoided  the  extreme  statements  which  had  led  to 


OTHER  MYSTICS  281 

churchly  condemnation  of  Eckhart's  opinions.  A  less  practical 
but  widely  influential  representative  of  the  same  tendencies 
was  the  ascetic  Dominican,  Henry  Suso  (?-1366),  whose  writ 
ings  did  much'to  further  this  mystic  point  of  view. 

Through  these  influences  a  whole  group  of  mystic  sympa 
thizers  was  raised  up  in  southwestern  Germany  and  Switzerland, 
who  called  themselves  "Friends  of  God."  These  included 
not  only  many  of  the  clergy,  but  nuns  and  a  considerable 
number  of  laity.  Among  the  laymen,  Rulman  Merswin, 
of  Strassburg  (1307-1382),  was  the  most  influential.  Origi 
nally  a  banker  and  merchant,  he  was  intimate  with  Tauler, 
whose  views  he  shared,  and  devoted  all  the  latter  part  of  his 
life  to  religious  labors.  He  mystified  his  contemporaries  and 
posterity  by  letters  and  books  which  he  set  forth  purporting 
to  come  from  a  "great  Friend  of  God"  in  the  Highlands  (i.  e., 
Switzerland),  whose  existence  was  long  believed  real,  but  now 
is  practically  proved  to  have  been  a  fiction  of  Merswin  himself. 
The  most  important  work  of  these  Friends  of  God  was  the 
"German  Theology,"  written  late  in  the  fourteenth  century 
by  an  otherwise  unknown  and  unnamed  priest  of  the  Deutsch- 
Herrn  Haus  of  Frankfort,  which  was  to  influence  Luther,  and 
to  be  printed  by  him  in  1516  and  1518. 

These  German  mystics  all  leaned  strongly  toward  pantheism. 
They  all,  however,  represented  a  view  of  the  Christian  life 
which  saw  its  essence  in  a  transforming  personal  union  of  the 
soul  with  God,  and  they  all  laid  little  weight  on  the  more  ex 
ternal  methods  of  ordinary  churchly  life. 

This  mystical  movement  was  furthered  in  the  Netherlands 
by  John  of  Ruysbroeck  (1294-1381),  who  was  influenced  by 
Eckhart's  writings  and  enjoyed  the  personal  friendship  of  Tauler 
and  other  of  the  Friends  of  God.  Ruysbroeck's  friend,  in 
turn,  was  Gerhard  Groot  (1340-1384)— a  brilliant  scholar, 
who  upon  his  conversion,  about  1374,  became  the  most  influ 
ential  popular  preacher  of  the  Netherlands.  A  more  conserva 
tive  churchly  thinker  than  Ruysbroeck,  Groot  was  much  less 
radical  in  his  mysticism.  A  man  of  great  practical  gifts, 
Groot's  work  led  shortly  after  his  death  to  the  foundation 
by  his  disciple,  Florentius  Radewyn  (1350-1400),  of  the  Breth 
ren  of  the  Common  Life.  This  association,  of  which  the  first 
house  Was  established  in  Deventer,  grew  out  of  the  union  of 
Groot's  converts  for  a  warmer  religious  life.  They  grouped 


282         BRETHREN  OF  THE  COMMON  LIFE 

themselves  in  houses  of  brethren  and  of  sisters,  who  lived  es 
sentially  a  monastic  life  under  common  rules,  but  without  per 
manent  vows,  engaged  in  religious  exercises,  copying  books  of 
edification,  and  especially  in  teaching.  Work  was  required  of 
all.  These  houses  were  wide-spread  in  the  Netherlands  and  in 
Germany,  and  did  much  to  promote  popular  piety  in  the  fif 
teenth  century. 

The  Brethren  of  the  Common  Life  were  non-monastic  in 
the  matter  of  vows.  Groot's  preaching  led  to  an  influential 
movement  for  those  who  preferred  the  monastic  life,  though  it, 
also,  did  not  take  full  form  till  shortly  after  his  death.  This 
was  the  foundation  of  the  famous  monastery  of  Windesheim, 
which  soon  gathered  a  number  of  affiliated  convents  about  it, 
and  became  a  reformatory  influence  of  power  in  the  monastic 
life  of  the  Netherlands  and  Germany.  In  both  these  move 
ments  the  mystic  influence  was  strongly  present,  though  in  a 
much  more  ehurchly  form  than  among  the  immediate  disciples 
of  Eckhart. 

The  noblest  product  of  this  simple,  mystical,  ehurchly  piety 
is  the  Imitation  of  Christ — a  book  the  circulation  of  which  has 
exceeded  that  of  any  other  product  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
Though  its  authorship  has  been  the  theme  of  heated  contro 
versy,  it  was  unquestionably  the  work  of  Thomas  a  Kempis 
(1380?-1471).  A  pupil  of  the  Brethren  of  the  Common  Life 
in  Deventer,  most  of  his  long  life  was  spent  in  the  monastery 
of  Mount  St.  Agnes,  near  Zwolle.  This  foundation  was  a 
member  of  the  Windesheim  congregation,  of  which  Thomas's 
older  brother,  John,  was  one  of  the  founders.  Thomas's  life 
was  outwardly  the  most  uneventful  conceivable ;  but  few  have 
understood,  as  did  he,  the  language  of  simple,  mystical  devo 
tion  to  Christ. 

The  mystical  movement  had  its  reverse  side  in  a  pantheism 
which  broke  with  all  ehurchly  and  even  all  moral  teaching. 
Such  was  that  of  Amalrich  of  Bena  (?-1204),  a  teacher  in 
Paris,  who  was  led  by  the  writings  of  John  Scotus  Erigena 
(ante,  p.  210)  and  the  extreme  Neo-Platonic  opinions  of  the 
Spanish  Mohammedan  expositor  of  Aristotle,  Averroes  (1126- 
1198),  to  the  conclusions  that  God  is  all,  that  He  is  incarnate 
in  the  believer  as  in  Christ,  and  that  the  believer  cannot  sin. 
He  also  held  that  as  the  Jewish  law  and  ritual  had  been  abol 
ished  by  the  coming  of  Christ,  so  that  of  earlier  Christianity 


MYSTICAL  EXTRAVAGANCES  283 

was  now  done  away  with  by  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Amalrich  was  compelled  to  recant  by  Pope  Innocent  III,  but  he 
left  a  number  of  followers. 

Similar  extravagances  kept  cropping  out  in  the  regions  of 
Germany  and  the  Netherlands,  where  the  mysticism  already 
described  had  its  chief  following.  In  many  ways  it  was  simply 
that  mysticism  carried  to  a  pantheistic  extreme.  It  was  usu 
ally  quietist,  believing  that  the  soul  could  become  one  with 
God  by  contemplation,  and  in  consequence  of  that  union  its 
acts  could  no  longer  be  sinful,  since  it  is  controlled  by  God. 
All  sacraments  and  penances,  even  prayer,  become  superfluous. 
These  views  were  not  united  into  a  compact  system,  nor  did 
their  holders  constitute  a  sect,  though  they  have  often  been  so 
regarded  and  named  the  "Brethren  and  Sisters  of  the  Free 
Spirit.'1  Undoubtedly,  however,  such  notions  were  rather  fre 
quently  to  be  found  in  monasteries  and  nunneries,  where  mys 
ticism  was  practised  extravagantly,  and  among  the  Beguines, 
whom  they  brought  into  doubtful  repute.  They  were  not  only 
repressed  by  the  inquisition,  but  were  opposed  by  the  greater 
mystic  leaders  of  whom  an  account  has  been  given. 

SECTION   IX.      MISSIONS  AND  DEFEATS 

The  period  between  the  Crusades  and  the  Reformation  was 
one  of  gains  and  losses  for  Christendom.  In  Spain  the  Chris 
tian  forces  struggled  with  increasing  success  against  the  Mo 
hammedans.  Gradually,  four  Christian  states  dominated  the 
peninsula.  Castile  conquered  Toledo  in  1085,  defeated  the 
Moslems  at  Las  Navas  de  Tolosa  in  1212,  and  united  with 
Leon  into  a  strong  state  in  1230.  Little  Navarre  stretched  on 
both  sides  of  the  Pyrenees.  Meanwhile  Aragon  on  the  east 
and  Portugal  on  the  west  were  winning  their  independence, 
so  that  by  1250  Mohammedan  power  on  the  peninsula  was 
confined  to  the  kingdom  of  Granada,  whence  it  was  to  be  driven 
in  1492.  The  Spanish  Christian  kingdoms  were  weak.  The 
real  power  of  Spain  was  not  to  be  manifest  till  the  joint  reign 
of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  united  Castile  and  Aragon  in  1479. 

In  the  East  the  great  Mongol  empire,  which  began  with  the 
conquest  of  northern  China  in  1213,  stretched  across  northern 
Asia,  conquering  most  of  what  is  now  European  Russia  between 
1238  and  1241,  and  reaching  the  borders  of  Palestine  in  1258. 


284     MISSIONS  TO  CHINA  AND  TO  MOSLEMS 

By  this  devastation  the  flourishing  Nestorian  Church  in  cen 
tral  Asia  (ante,  p.  149)  was  almost  annihilated.  Yet  after  the 
first  rush  of  conquest  was  over,  central  Asia  under  Mongol 
control  was  accessible  as  it  had  never  been  before  and  was  not 
to  be  till  the  nineteenth  century.  About  1260  two  Venetian 
merchants,  Nicolo  and  Maffeo  Polo,  made  the  long  journey  by 
land  to  Peking,  where  they  were  well  received  by  the  Mongol 
Khan,  Kublai.  Returning  in  1269,  they  started  again  in  1271, 
taking  Nicolo's  more  famous  son,  Marco,  who  entered  the 
Khan's  service.  It  was  not  till  1295  that  the  Polos  were  back 
in  Venice.  Even  before  their  return  an  Italian  Franciscan, 
John  of  Monte  Corvino,  had  started  in  1291  for  Peking,  where 
he  established  a  church  about  1300.  Christianity  flourished 
for  a  time.  Pope  Clement  V  (1305-1314)  appointed  John  an 
archbishop  with  six  bishops  under  him.  The  work  came  to  an 
end,  however,  when  the  Mongols  and  other  foreigners  were  ex 
pelled  from  China  by  the  victorious  native  Ming  dynasty  in 
1368. 

Efforts  were  made  to  reach  the  Mohammedans,  but  with  lit 
tle  success.  Francis  of  Assisi  himself  preached  to  the  Sultan  in 
Egypt  in  1219  (ante,  p.  258).  More  famous  as  a  missionary 
was  Raimon  Lull  (1235?-1315),  a  native  of  the  island  of  Ma 
jorca.  From  a  wholly  worldly  life  he  was  converted  in  1266, 
and  now  studied  Arabic,  as  a  missionary  preparation,  writing 
also  his  Ars  Major,  which  he  intended  as  an  irrefutable  demon 
stration  of  Christianity.  In  1291  he  began  missionary  work 
in  Tunis,  only  to  be  expelled  at  the  end  of  a  year.  He  labored 
to  induce  the  Pope  to  establish  schools  for  missionary  training. 
He  went  once  more  to  Africa  and  was  again  driven  out.  His 
eloquence  persuaded  the  Council  of  Vienne  in  1311  to  order 
teaching  in  Greek,  Hebrew,  Chaldee,  and  Arabic,  in  Avignon, 
Paris,  Salamanca,  Bologna,  and  Oxford,  though  this  remained 
a  pious  wish.  Back  to  Tunis  he  went  as  a  missionary  in  1314, 
and  met  a  martyr's  death  by  stoning  the  next  year.  He  had 
little  to  show  of  missionary  achievement,  but  much  of  mission 
ary  inspiration. 

The  prevailing  characteristic  of  this  period  was  the  loss  of 
once  Christian  territories.  The  last  of  the  conquests  of  the 
Crusaders  in  Palestine  passed  out  of  their  hands  in  1291.  A 
new  Mohammedan  force  was  arising  in  the  Ottoman  Turks. 
Sprung  from  central  Asia,  they  attained  an  independent  posi- 


SPREAD  OF  THE  TURKS  285 

tion  in  Asia  Minor  in  1300.  In  1354  they  invaded  the  Euro 
pean  portion  of  the  Eastern  empire,  capturing  Adrianople  in 
1361,  and  gradually  spreading  their  rule  over  the  Balkan  lands. 
But  a  fragmeiit  of  the  empire  remained  till  1453,  when  Con 
stantinople  fell  and  the  Eastern  empire  was  at  an  end.  The 
victorious  career  of  the  Turks  was  to  carry  them,  in  the  Ref 
ormation  age,  nearly  half  across  Europe.  Christians  ruled  by 
them  were  deprived  of  political  rights,  though  Christian  wor 
ship  and  organization  continued,  under  conditions  of  much 
oppression.  The  Greek  Church,  which  had  stood  higher  in  cul 
ture  than  the  Latin,  certainly  till  the  thirteenth  century,  was 
now  largely  robbed  of  significance.  Its  daughter  in  Russia  was 
not  conquered,  however,  and  was  growing  rapidly  in  strength 
and  importance.  With  it  lay  the  future  of  the  Eastern  Church. 

SECTION   X.      THE  PAPACY  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  AND  ITS  DECLINE 

The  contest  between  papacy  and  empire  was  by  no  means 
ended  by  the  Concordat  of  Worms  (ante,  p.  234).  The  religious 
interest  in  the  struggle  was  thereafter  far  less.  Hildebrand's 
quarrel  had  involved  a  great  question  of  church  purification. 
The  later  disputes  were  plain  contests  for  supremacy. 

Frederick  "Barbarossa"  (1152-1190),  of  the  house  of  Hohen- 
staufen,  was  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  Holy  Roman  Emperors. 
His  model  was  Charlemagne,  and  he  aspired  to  a  similar  con 
trol  of  churchly  affairs.  A  vigorous  ruler  at  home,  no  sovereign 
had  been  more  thoroughly  master  of  Germany  than  he.  In 
spite  of  the  Concordat  of  Worms  he  practically  controlled  the 
appointment  of  German  bishops.  On  the  other  hand,  his 
claims  met  with  energetic  resistance  from  the  cities  of  northern 
Italy,  which  were  growing  strong  on  the  commerce  induced  by 
the  Crusades.  This  hostility  he  at  first  successfully  overcame. 
With  Alexander  III  (1159-1 181)  Frederick's  most  able  enemy 
mounted  the  papal  throne.  The  cardinals  were  divided  in  the 
choice,  and  an  imperialistic  minority  elected  a  rival  Pope,  who 
called  himself  Victor  IV,  and  whom  Frederick  and  the  German 
bishops  promptly  supported.  Alexander's  position  was  long 
difficult.  In  1176,  however,  Frederick  was  defeated  at  Legnano 
by  the  Lombard  league  of  Italian  cities,  and  was  forced  to 
recognize  Alexander.  Frederick's  attempt  to  control  the  papacy 
had  been  shattered,  but  his  authority  over  the  German  bishops 


286  HENRY  II  AND  THOMAS  BECKET 

was  scarcely  diminished.1  Frederick  won  a  further  success  over 
the  papacy,  in  1186,  by  the  marriage  of  his  son  Henry  with 
the  heiress  of  Sicily  and  southern  Italy,  thus  threatening  the 
papal  states  from  north  and  south. 

Alexander  III  also  won  at  least  an  apparent  success  over 
Henry  II  (1 154-1 189),  one  of  the  ablest  of  English  Kings.  That 
monarch,  in  order  to  strengthen  his  hold  over  the  English 
church,  secured  the  election  of  his  apparently  complaisant  chan 
cellor,  Thomas  Becket,  as  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  1162. 
Once  in  office,  Becket  showed  himself  a  determined  upholder 
of  ecclesiastical  claims.  Henry  now,  in  1164,  secured  the  en 
actment  of  the  Constitutions  of  Clarendon2,  limiting  the  right 
of  appeal  to  Rome  in  ecclesiastical  cases,  restricting  the  power 
of  excommunication,  subjecting  the  clergy  to  civil  courts,  and 
putting  the  election  of  bishops  under  the  control  of  the  King, 
to  whom  they  must  do  homage.  Becket  now  openly  broke 
with  the  King.  In  1170  a  truce  was  brought  about,  but  it  was 
of  short  duration,  and  a  hasty  expression  of  anger  on  the  part 
of  Henry  led  to  Becket 's  murder  just  at  the  close  of  the  year. 
Alexander  used  the  deed  skilfully.  In  1172  Becket  was  can 
onized,  and  continued  till  the  Reformation  one  of  the  most 
popular  of  English  saints.  Henry  was  forced  to  abandon  the 
Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  and  do  penance  at  Becket's  grave. 
Yet  in  spite  of  this  apparent  papal  victory,  Henry  continued 
his  control  of  English  ecclesiastical  affairs  much  as  before. 

Frederick  "Barbarossa"  died  in  1190,  on  the  Third  Crusade. 
He  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Henry  VI  (1190-1197),  who,  in 
1194,  obtained  full  possession  of  his  wife's  inheritance  in  Sicily 
and  southern  Italy,  and  developed  ambitious  plans  of  greatly 
extending  his  imperial  sway.  The  papacy,  with  both  ends  of 
Italy  in  the  possession  of  the  German  sovereign,  was  in  great 
political  danger;  but  the  situation  was  relieved  by  the  early 
death  of  Henry  VI  in  1197,  and  the  accession  to  the  papacy  in 
1198  of  one  of  its  ablest  mediaeval  representatives,  Innocent  III 
(1198-1216). 

•Innocent  III  was  unquestionably  a  man  of  personal  humility 
and  piety,  but  no  Pope  ever  had  higher  conceptions  of  the  papal 

1See  "Peace  of  Venice,"  Henderson,  Select  Historical  Documents,  pp. 
425-430. 

2  Gee  and  Hardy,  Documents  Illustrative  of  English  Church  History,  pp. 
68-73. 


INNOCENT  III  287 

office  and  under  him  the  papacy  reached  its  highest  actual 
power.  The  death  of  Henry  VI  saw  Germany  divided.  One 
party  supported  the  claims  of  Henry's  brother,  Philip  of  Swabia, 
the  other  those  of  Otto  of  Brunswick,  of  the  rival  house  of 
Welf  (Guelph).  Out  of  this  confused  situation  Innocent  strove 
with  gre.at  skill  to  bring  advantage  to  the  papacy.  He  secured 
large  concessions  in  Italy  and  Germany  from  Otto,  yet  when 
Philip  gradually  gained  the  upper  hand,  Innocent  secured  an 
agreement  that  the  rival  claims  should  be  submitted  to  the 
judgment  of  a  court  controlled  by  the  Pope.  The  murder  of 
Philip  in  1208  frustrated  this  plan,  and  put  Otto  IV  once  more 
to  the  fore.  Innocent  now  obtained  from  Otto  the  desired 
guarantee  of  the  extent  of  the  papal  states,  and  a  promise  to 
abandon  control  of  German  episcopal  elections,  and  on  the 
strength  of  these  concessions  crowned  Otto  Emperor  in  1209. 
Otto  promptly  forgot  all  his  promises.  The  angered  Pope  now 
put  forward  Frederick  II  (1212-1250),  the  young  son  of  the  late 
Emperor,  Henry  VI,  who  was  chosen  to  the  German  throne 
by  the  elements  opposed  to  Otto,  in  1212,  and  renewed  all 
Otto's  broken  promises.  In  1214  Otto  was  wholly  defeated  by 
the  French  King,  Philip  II  (1179-1223)  on  the  field  of  Bouvines, 
and  Frederick  was  assured  of  the  empire.  Thus,  Innocent  III 
seemed  wholly  to  have  defended  papal  claims  and  to  have 
dictated  the  imperial  succession.  The  world  supremacy  of  the 
papacy  appeared  realized. 

Nor  was  Innocent  III  less  successful  in  humbling  the  sov 
ereigns  of  other  lands.  He  compelled  the  powerful  Philip  II 
of  France,  by  the  prohibition  of  religious  services — an  interdict 
— to  take  back  the  Queen,  Ingeborg,  whom  Philip  had  unjustly 
divorced.  He  separated  King  Alfonso  IX  of  Leon  from  a  wife 
too  closely  related.  King  Peter  of  Aragon  received  his  king 
dom  as  a  fief  from  the  Pope.  Innocent's  greatest  apparent  vic 
tory  was,  however,  in  the  case  of  England.  The  cruel  and 
unpopular  King  John  (1199-1216),  in  a  divided  election  tried 
to  secure  his  candidate  as  archbishop  of  Canterbury.  The  dis 
pute  was  appealed  to  Rome.  The  King's  choice  was  set  aside 
and  Innocent's  friend,  Stephen  Langton,  received  the  prize. 
John  resisted.  Innocent  laid  England  under  an  interdict.  The 
King  drove  out  his  clerical  opponents.  The  Pope  aow  excom 
municated  him,  declared  his  throne  forfeited  and  proclaimed  a 
crusade  against  him.  The  defeated  King  not  merely  made  a 


288     THE  PAPACY  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  OF  TOWER 

humiliating  submission  to  the  Pope,  in  1213,  but  acknowledged 
his  kingdom  a  fief  of  the  papacy,  agreeing  to  pay  a  feudal  tax 
to  the  Pope  of  a  thousand  marks  annually.1  Yet  when  the 
barons  and  clergy  wrung  Magna  Charta  from  John  in  1215, 
Innocent  denounced  it  as  an  injury  to  his  vassal. 

In  the  internal  affairs  of  the  church  Innocent's  policy  was 
strongly  centralizing.  He  claimed  for  the  papacy  the  right  of 
decision  in  all  disputed  episcopal  elections.  He  asserted  sole 
authority  to  sanction  the  transfer  of  bishops  from  one  see  to 
another.  His  crusade  against  the  Cathari  has  already  been 
noted  (ante,  p.  253).  The  great  Fourth  Lateran  Council  of 
1215,  at  which  transubstantiation  was  declared  an  article  of 
faith,  and  annual  confession  and  communion  required,  was  also 
a  papal  triumph.  The  conquest  of  Constantinople  by  the 
Fourth  Crusade  (ante,  p.  243),  though  not  approved  by  Inno 
cent,  seemed  to  promise  the  subjection  of  the  Greek  Church  to 
papal  authority. 

In  Innocent  III  the  papacy  reached  the  summit  of  its  worldly 
power.  The  succeeding  Popes  continued  the  same  struggle, 
but  with  decreasing  success.  The  Emperor  Frederick  II,  ruler 
of  Germany,  as  well  as  of  northern  and  southern  Italy  and 
Sicily,  a  man  of  much  political  ability  and  of  anything  but 
mediaeval  piety,  though  put  in  office  largely  by  Innocent  III, 
soon  proved  the  chief  opponent  of  the  world  pretensions  of  the 
papacy.  Under  Gregory  IX  (1227-1241),  the  organizer  of  the 
inquisition  and  the  patron  of  the  Franciscans  (ante,  pp.  254,  258), 
and  Innocent  IV  (1243-1254)  the  papal  contest  was  carried  on 
against  Frederick  II,  with  the  utmost  bitterness  and  with  very 
worldly  weapons.  Frederick  was  excommunicated,  and  rivals 
were  raised  up  against  him  in  Germany  by  papal  influence. 
The  papacy  seemed  convinced  that  only  the  destruction  of  the 
Hohenstaufen  line,  to  which  Frederick  belonged,  would  assure 
its  victory.  On  Frederick's  death  in  1250  it  pursued  his  son, 
Conrad  IV  (1250-1254),  with  the  same  hostility,  and  gave  his 
heritage  in  southern  Italy  and  Sicily  to  Edmund  of  England, 
son  of  King  Henry  III.  A  new  influence,  that  of  France,  was 
making  itself  felt  in  papal  counsels.  Urban  IV  (1261-1264)  was 
a  Frenchman  and  appointed  French  cardinals.  He  now  gave, 
in  1263,  southern  Italy  and  Sicily  to  Charles  of  Anjou,  brother 
of  King  Louis  IX  of  France  (1226-1270).  This  was.  a  turning- 

1  Henderson,  pp.  430-432. 


NEW  FORCES  LIMITING   PAPAL  POWER     289 

point  in  papal  politics,  and  with  it  the  dependence  of  the  papacy 
on  France  really  began.  The  next  Pope  was  also  a  Frenchman, 
Clement  IV  (1265-1268).  During  his  papacy  Conradin,  the 
young  son  of  Conrad  IV,  asserted  his  hereditary  claims  to 
southern  Italy  and  Sicily  by  force  of  arms.  He  was  excom 
municated  by  Clement  IV  and  defeated  by  Charles  of  Anjou, 
by  whose  orders  he  was  beheaded  in  Naples,  in  1268.  With 
him  ended  the  line  of  Hohenstaufen,  which  the  Popes  had  so 
strenuously  opposed,  though  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that 
the  Pope  was  responsible  in  any  way  for  Conradin's  execution. 
These  long  quarrels  and  the  consequent  confusion  had 
greatly  enfeebled  the  power  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire. 
Thenceforward,  to  the  Reformation,  it  was  far  more  a  group  of 
feeble  states  than  an  effective  single  sovereignty.  It  was  able 
to  offer  little  resistance  to  papal  demands.  Other  forces  were, 
however,  arising  that  would  inevitably  make  impossible,  such 
a  world  sovereignty  as  Innocent  III  had  exercised.  One  such 
force  was  the  new  sense  of  nationality,  which  caused  men x  to 
feel  that,  as  Frenchmen  or  Englishmen,  they  had  common  in 
terests  against  all  foreigners,  even  the  Pope  himself.  Such  a 
sense  of  unity  had  not  existed  in  the  earlier  Middle  Ages.  It 
was  rapidly  developing,  especially  in  France  and  England  in 
the  latter  half  of  the  thirteenth  century.  A  second  cause  was 
the  rise  in  intelligence,  wealth,  and  political  influence  of  the 
middle  class,  especially  in  the  cities.  These  \vere  restive  under 
ecclesiastical  interference  in  temporal  affairs.  Closely  asso 
ciated  with  this  development  was  the  growth  of  a  body  of  lay 
lawyers  and  the  renewed  study  of  the  Roman  law.  These 
men  were  gradually  displacing  ecclesiastics  as  royal  advisers, 
and  developing  the  effectiveness  of  the  royal  power  by  prece 
dents  from  a  body  of  law — the  Roman — which  knew  nothing  of 
mediaeval  ecclesiastical  conditions.  There  was  also  a  growing 
conviction  among  thoughtful  and  religious  men  that  such 
worldly  aims  as  the  recent  papacy  had  followed  were  incon 
sistent  with  the  true  interests  of  the  church.  These  were 
growing  forces  with  which  the  papacy  must  reckon.  The  weak 
ness  of  the  papacy,  from  a  worldly  point  of  view,  was  that  it 
had  no  adequate  ph$*ical  forces  at  its  disposal.  It  must  bal 
ance  off  one  competitor  against  another,  and  the  wreck  wrought 
in  Germany  left  the  door  open  to  France  without  forces  which 
could  be  matched  against  her. 


290     BONIFACE  VIII  AND  PHILIP  THE  FAIR 

Papal  interference  in  Germany  continued.  Pope  Gregory 
X  (1271-1276)  ordered  the  German  electors,  in  1273,  to  choose 
a  King,  under  threat  that  the  Pope  himself  would  make  the 
appointment  if  they  failed.  They  chose  Rudolf  I,  of  Habs- 
burg  (1273-1291),  who  promptly  renewed  the  concessions  to 
the  papacy  which  had  been  once  made  by  Otto  IV  and  Fred 
erick  II. 

Quite  otherwise  was  it  speedily  with  France.  The  power  of 
that  monarchy  had  been  rapidly  growing,  and  in  Philip  IV, 
"the  Fair''  (1285-1314),  France  had  a  King  of  absolute  un- 
scrupulousness,  obstinacy,  and  high  conceptions  of  royal  au 
thority.  In  Boniface  VIII  (1294-1303)  the  papacy  was  held 
by  a  man  of  as  lofty  aspirations  to  world-rule  as  had  ever  there 
been  represented.  Neither  participant  in  the  struggle  com 
mands  much  sympathy.  War  had  arisen  between  France, 
Scotland,  and  England  which  compelled  the  English  King, 
Edward  I  (1272-1307),  to  rally  the  support  of  all  his  subjects 
by  inviting  the  representatives  of  the  Commons  to  take  a  place 
in  Parliament,  in  1295,  thus  giving  them  a  permanent  share 
in  the  English  national  councils.  The  struggle  also  induced 
the  Kings  of  France  and  England  to  tax  their  clergy  to  meet 
its  expenses.  The  clergy  complained  to  Pope  Boniface,  who, 
in  1296  issued  the  bull  Clericis  laicos,1  inflicting  excommunica 
tion  on  all  who  demanded  or  paid  such  taxes  on  clerical  prop 
erty  without  papal  permission.  Philip  replied  by  prohibiting 
the  export  of  money  from  France,  thus  striking  at  the  revenues 
of  the  Pope  and  of  the  Italian  bankers.  The  latter  moved 
Boniface  to  modify  his  attitude  so  that  the  clergy  could  make 
voluntary  contributions,  and  even  allowed  that,  in  great  neces 
sities,  the  King  could  lay  a  tax.  It  was  a  royal  victory. 

Comparative  peace  prevailed  between  Philip  and  Boniface 
for  a  few  years.  In  1301  the  struggle  again  began.  Philip 
had  Bernard  Saisset,  bishop  of  Pamiers,  whom  the  Pope  had 
recently  sent  to  him  as  nuntius,  arrested  and  charged  with 
high  treason.  The  Pope  ordered  Bernard's  release  and  cited 
the  French  bishops,  and  ultimately  King  Philip  himself,  to 
Rome.  In  reply,  Philip  summoned  the  first  French  States- 
General,  in  which  clergy,  nobles,  and  commoners  were  rep 
resented.  This  body,  in  1302,  sustained  the  King  in  his  atti 
tude  of  resistance.  The  Pope  answered  with  the  famous  bull, 

1  Henderson,  pp.  432-434 ;  Robinson,  1 :  488-490. 


THE  PAPACY  REMOVES  TO  AVIGNON       291 

Unam  sanctam,1  the  high-water  mark  of  papal  claim  to  suprem 
acy  over  civil  powers.  It  affirmed  that  temporal  powers  are 
subject  to  the  spiritual  authority,  which  is  judged  in  the  per 
son  of  the  Pope f by  God  alone.  It  declared,  following  the  opin 
ion  of  Aquinas  (ante,  p.  277),  "that  it  is  altogether  necessary 
to  salvation  for  every  human  being  to  be  subject  to  the  Roman 
pontiff" — an  affirmation  the  exact  scope  of  which  has  led  to 
much  subsequent  discussion.  Philip  answered  with  a  new 
assembly,  where  the  Pope  was  charged  with  an  absurd  series 
of  crimes,  involving  heresy  and  moral  depravity,  and  appeal 
was  issued  for  a  general  council  of  the  church  before  which  the 
Pope  might  be  tried.  Philip  was  determined  that  this  should 
be  no  mere  threat.  He  would  force  the  Pope  to  consent. 
He  therefore  sent  his  able  jurist  vice-chancellor,  William 
Nogaret,  who  joined  to  himself  Boniface's  ancient  family 
enemy,  Sciarra  Colonna.  Together  they  gathered  a  force  and 
made  Boniface  a  prisoner  in  Anagni,  just  as  he  was  about  to 
proclaim  Philip's  excommunication,  in  1303.  Boniface  was 
courageous.  He  would  make  no  concessions.  His  friends 
soon  freed  him,  but  a  month  later  he  died. 

These  events  were  a  staggering  blow  to  the  temporal  claims 
of  the  papacy.  It  was  not  primarily  that  Philip's  representa 
tives  had  held  Boniface  for  a  short  time  a  prisoner.  A  new 
force  had  arisen,  that  of  national  sentiment,  to  which  the  King 
had  appealed  successfully,  and  against  which  the  spiritual 
weapons  of  the  papacy  had  been  of  little  avail.  The  papal 
hope  of  world-rulership  in  temporal  affairs  had  proved  impos 
sible  of  permanent  realization. 

Worse  for  the  papacy  was  speedily  to  follow.  After  the 
death  of  Boniface's  successor,  the  excellent  Benedict  XI  (1303- 
1304),  the  cardinals  chose  a  Frenchman,  Bertrand  de  Gouth, 
who  took  the  title  of  Clement  V  (1305-1314).  A  man  of  weak 
ness  of  character  and  grave  moral  faults,  he  was  fully  under 
the  influence  of  King  Philip  IV,  of  France.  He  declared  Philip 
innocent  of  the  attack  on  Boniface  VIII,  and  cancelled  Boni 
face's  interdicts  and  excommunications,  modifying  the  bull 
Unam  sanctam  to  please  the  King.  An  evidence  of  French 
domination  that  was  patent  to  all  the  world  was  the  removal 
of  the  seat  of  the  papacy,  in  1309,  to  Avignon — on  the  river 
Rhone — a  town  not  belonging  indeed  to  the  French  kingdom, 
1  Henderson,  pp.  435-437 ;  Robinson,  1 :  346-348. 


292  CANON  LAW 

but  in  popular  estimate  amounting  to  the  establishment  of  the 
papacy  in  France.  Undoubtedly  the  troubled  state  of  Italian 
politics  had  something  to  do  with  this  removal.  At  Avignon 
the  papacy  was  to  have  its  seat  till  1377 — a  period  so  nearly 
equal  to  the  traditional  exile  of  the  Jews  as  to  earn  the  name 
of  the  Babylonish  Captivity.  Nor  was  the  cup  of  Clement's 
humiliation  yet  filled.  The  cold-blooded  King  compelled  him 
to  join  in  the  cruel  destruction  of  the  Templars  (ante,  p.  242). 
Clement  V's  pontificate  is  interesting  as  marking  the  con 
clusion,  to  the  present,  of  the  official  collections  of  church  or 
"canon"  law.  That  great  body  of  authority  was  the  product 
of  the  history  of  the  church  since  the  early  councils,  and  em 
braced  their  decisions,  the  decrees  of  synods  and  of  Popes. 
The  Middle  Ages  had  seen  many  collections,  of  which  the  most 
famous  was  that  gathered,  probably  in  1148,  by  Gratian,  a 
teacher  of  canon  law  in  Bologna.  Pope  Gregory  IX  (1227- 
1241)  caused  an  official  collection  to  be  formed,  in  1234,  includ 
ing  new  decrees  up  to  his  time.  Pope  Boniface  VIII  (1294- 
1303),  published  a  similar  addition  in  1298,  and  Clement  V 
(1305-1314)  enlarged  it  in  1314,  though  his  work  was  not  pub 
lished  till  1317,  under  his  successor,  John  XXII  (1316-1334). 
The  great  structure,  thus  laboriously  erected  through  the  cen 
turies,  is  a  mass  of  ecclesiastical  jurisprudence  embracing  all 
domains  of  ecclesiastical  life.  Though  official  collections  ceased 
from  Clement  V  to  the  twentieth  century,  the  creation  of 
church  law  has  continued  in  all  ages,  and  the  recent  Pope, 
Pius  X  (1903-1914),  in  1904  ordered  the  codification  and  sim 
plification  of  the  whole  body  of  canon  law  by  a  special  commis 
sion. 


SECTION   XI.      THE   PAPACY   IN  AVIGNON,   CRITICISM. 
THE   SCHISM 

The  Popes,  while  the  papacy  was  in  Avignon,  were  all 
Frenchmen.  It  seemed  as  if  the  papacy  had  become  a  French 
institution.  This  association  caused  greatly  increased  rest 
lessness  in  view  of  papal  claims,  especially  in  nations  which, 
like  England,  were  at  war  with  France  during  much  of  this 
period,  or  Germany  on  which  the  still  continuing  interference 
of  the  papacy  bore  hard.  The  ablest  of  the  Avignon  Popes 
was  unquestionably  John  XXII  (1316-1334).  The  double 


CRITICS  OF  THE   PAPAL  CLAIMS  293 

imperial  election  in  Germany,  in  1314,  had  divided  that  land 
between  supporters  of  Louis  the  Bavarian  (1314-1347),  and 
Frederick  of  Austria.  John  XXII,  supported  by  King  Philip 
V  of  France  (1316-1322),  thought  the  occasion  ripe  to  diminish 
German  influence  in  Italy  for  the  benefit  of  the  States  of  the 
Church.;  He  declined  to  recognize  either  claimant,  and  de- 
*  q^red  that  the  Pope  had  right  to  administer  the  empire  during 
vacancies.  When  Louis  interfered  in  Italian  affairs  the  Pope 
excommunicated  him,  and  a  contest  with  the  papacy  ensued 
which  lasted  till  Louis's  death.  In  its  course  the  German  elec 
tors  issued  the  famous  declaration  of  1338,  in  Rense,  which  was 
confirmed  by  the  Reichstag  in  Frankfort  the  same  year,  that 
the  chosen  head  of  the  empire  needs  no  approval  from  the 
papacy  whatever  for  full  entrance  on  or  continuation  in  the 
duties  of  his  office. 

These  attacks  upon  the  state  aroused  literary  defenders  of 
considerable  significance.  One  of  these  was  the  great  Italian 
poet,  Dante  Alighieri  (1265-1321).  His  Latin  treatise,  On 
Monarchy,  is  not  surely  dated,  but  was  composed  between  1311 
and  1318.  Dante  holds  that  peace  is  the  best  condition  of 
mankind.  It  is  most  effectively  secured  by  an  Emperor. 
The  power  of  empire  rightfully  came  to  Rome.  It  is  as  neces 
sary  for  man's  temporal  happiness  as  the  papacy  is  to  guide 
men  to  eternal  blessedness.  Each  is  directly  from  God,  and 
neither  should  interfere  in  the  province  of  the  other.  Dante 
carefully  controverts  the  papal  interpretation  of  the  Bible 
texts  and  historical  instances  on  which  claims  to  control  over 
the  state  were  based.  All  this  is  the  more  impressive  since 
Dante  was  no  free-thinker  but  theologically  of  most  impeccable 
orthodoxy. 

Much  more  radical  than  Dante,  and  vastly  influential  on 
later  political  theories  were  several  treatises  produced  in  France. 
The  Dominican,  John  of  Paris  (1265?-1306),  taught  that  both 
papal  and  royal  powers  are  based  on  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people,  and  neither  has  a  right  to  interfere  with  the  sphere  of 
the  other.  The  most  important  of  these  works  was  the  Defensor 
Pacts  of  Marsilius  of  Padua  £1-1342?)  and  John  of  Jandun 
(?-1328)~ It  is  the  most  startlingly  modern  treatise  that  the 
age  produced.  Its  principal  author,  Marsilius,  was  long  a 
teacher  in  Paris,  where  he  was  rector  of  the  university  in  1313, 
and  was  regarded  as  learned  in  medicine.  The  Defensor  Pacis 


294  MARSILIUS  OF  PADUA 

was  written  in  1324,  in  the  controversy  between  Pope  John 
XXII  and  the  Emperor  Louis  the  Bavarian.  Its  radical  views 
caused  its  authors  to  seek  protection  from  the  Emperor,  which 
they  enjoyed,  though  with  some  hesitation,  for  the  rest  of  their 
lives.  They  were  excommunicated  by  John  XXII  in  1327, 
and  Pope  Clement  VI  declared,  in  1343,  that  he  had  never 
a  worse  heretical  book. 

According  to  Marsilius,  who  was  deeply  versed  in  Aristoi 
the  basis  of  all  power  is  the  people ;  in  the  state  the  whole  body 
of  citizens ;  in  the  church  the  whole  body  of  Christian  believers. 
They  are  the  legislative  power ;  by  them  rulers  in  church  and 
state  are  appointed,  and  to  them  these  executive  officers  are 
responsible.  The  only  final  authority  in  the  church  is  the 
New  Testament;  but  priests  have  no  power  of  physical  force 
to  compel  men  to  obey  it.  Their  sole  duty  is  to  teach,  warn, 
and  reprove.  The  New  Testament  teaches  that  bishops  and 
priests  are  equivalent  designations,  yet  it  is  well,  as  a  purely 
human  constitution,  to  appoint  some  clergy  superintendents 
over  others.  This  appointment  gives  no  superior  spiritual 
power,  nor  has  one  bishop  spiritual  authority  over  another,  or 
the  Pope  over  all.  Peter  had  no  higher  rank  than  the  other 
Apostles.  There  is  no  New  Testament  evidence  that  he  was 
ever  in  Rome.  The  New  Testament  gives  no  countenance  to 
the  possession  of  earthly  lordships  and  estates  by  clergymen. 
No  bishop  or  Pope  has  authority  to  define  Christian  truth  as 
contained  in  the  New  Testament,  or  make  binding  laws. 
These  acts  can  be  done  only  by  the  legislative  body  of  the 
church — the  whole  company  of  Christian  believers,  represented 
in  a  general  council.  Such  a  council  is  the  supreme  authority 
in  the  church.  Since  the  Christian  state  and  the  Christian 
church  are  coterminous,  the  executive  of  the  Christian  state, 
as  representing  a  body  of  believers,  may  call  councils,  appoint 
bishops,  and  control  church  property.1  Here  were  ideas  that 
were  to  bear  fruit  in  the  Reformation,  and  even  in  the  French 
Revolution ;  but  they  were  too  radical  greatly  to  impress  their 
age.  Their  time  was  later,  and  something  was  lacking  in  Mar 
silius  himself.  He  was  a  cool  thinker  rather  than  a  man  who 
could  translate  theory  into  action  in  such  fashion  as  to  create 
large  leadership. 

Because  of  a  zeal  which  Marsilius  lacked,  and  of  ideas  not 

1  See,  for  some  extracts,  Robinson,  1 :  491-497. 


ENGLISH  LIMITATION  OF  PAPAL  POWERS    295 

too  much  in  advance  of  the  age,  a  greater  authority  was  wielded 
by  William  of  Occam,  whose  theological  influence  and  ener 
getic  defense  of  the  extremer  Franciscan  doctrine  of  the  abso 
lute  poverty  of*  Christ  and  the  Apostles  has  been  noted  (ante, 
pp.  261,  278).  Occam,  like  Marsilius,  found  a  refuge  with 
is  the  Bavarian.  To  him,  as  to  Dante,  papacy  and  empire 
both  founded  by  God,  and  neitheT  is  superior  to  the  other, 
has  its  own  sphere.  The  church  has  purely  religious 
functions.  Its  final  authority  is  the  New  Testament. 

Voices  were  raised  in  defense  of  papal  claims.  One  of  the 
most  celebrated,  though  typical  rather  than  original,  was  that 
of  the  Italian  Augustinian  monk,  Augustinus  Triumphus  (1243- 
1328).  In  his  Summa  de  potestate  ecclesiastica,  written  about 
1322,  he  holds  that  all  princes  rule  as  subject  to  the  Pope,  who 
can  remove  them  at  pleasure.  No  civil  law  is  binding  if  dis 
approved  by  him.  The  Pope  can  be  judged  by  none ;  nor  can 
one  even  appeal  from  the  Pope  to  God,  "  since  the  decision  and 
court  of  God  and  the  Pope  are  one."  Yet  should  the  Pope  fall 
into  heresy,  his  office  is  forfeited. 

These  opinions  of  the  papal  supporters  were  far  from  being 
shared  by  Germans  engaged  in  a  struggle  against  the  papacy 
for  the  political  autonomy  of  the  empire,  or  by  Englishmen  at 
war  with  France,  who  believed  the  Avignon  papacy  the  tool  of 
the  French  sovereign.  Pope  Clement  V  (1305-1314)  had  as 
serted  the  right  of  the  papacy  to  appoint  to  all  ecclesiastical 
office.  Such  appointees  were  called  "provisors,"  and  the  in 
trusion  of  papal  favorites  in  England  aroused  King  and  Parlia 
ment  in  1351  to  enact  the  Statute  of  Provisors.  Elections  to 
bishoprics  and  other  ecclesiastical  posts  should  be  free  from 
papal  interference.  In  case  appointment  was  made  by  the 
regular  authorities,  and  also  by  the  Pope,  the  provisor  was  to 
be  imprisoned  till  he  resigned  his  claim.  This  law  inevitably 
led  to  disputes  between  papal  and  royal  authority,  and  a  further 
statute  of  1353,  known  as  that  of  Proemunire  forbade  appeals 
outside  of  the  kingdom  under  penalty  of  outlawry.1  In  en 
forcement  these  statutes  were  largely  dead  letters,  but  they 
show  the  growth  of  a  spirit  in  England  which  was  further  illus 
trated  when  Parliament,  in  1366,  refused  longer  to  recognize 
the  right  of  King  John  to  subject  his  kingdom,  in  1213,  to  the 
Pope  as  a  fief  (ante,  p.  288). 

^ee  and  Hardy,  Documents,  pp.  103,  104,  113-119. 


296  THE  PAPAL  TAXES 

No  feature  of  the  Avignon  papacy  contributed  to  its  criti 
cism  so  largely  as  its  offensive  taxation  of  church  life.  The 
Crusades  had  been  accompanied  by  a  much  readier  circulation 
of  money,  and  a  great  increase  in  commerce.  Europe  was 
passing  rapidly  from  barter  to  money  payments.  Money  taxes, 
rather  than  receipts  in  kind,  were  everywhere  increasing.  It 
was  natural  that  this  cha"nge  should  take  place  in  church  ad 
ministration  also  ;  but  the  extent  to  which  taxation  was  pushed 
by  the  Popes  of  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  was  a 
scandal,  and  it  was  much  aggravated  when  the  removal  of  the 
papacy  to  Avignon  largely  cut  off  the  revenues  from  the  papal 
estates  in  Italy  without  diminishing  the  luxury  or  expensive- 
ness  of  the  papal  court.  This  period  saw  the  extensive  devel 
opment,  in  imitation  of  secular  feudal  practice,  of  the  annates, 
that  is  a  tax  of  one  year's  income,  more  or  less,  from  each  new 
appointment.  Since  the  reservation  of  posts  to  exclusive  papal 
appointment  was  at  the  same  time  immensely  extended,  this 
became  a  large  source  of  revenue.  The  income  of  vacant  bene 
fices,  also,  became  a  significant  source  of  papal  receipts.  Taxes 
for  bulls  and  other  papal  documents,  also  rose  rapidly  in  amount 
and  productivity.  These  were  but  a  portion  of  the  papal  exac 
tions,  and  the  total  effect  was  the  impression  that  the  papal 
administration  was  heavily  and  increasingly  burdensome  on 
the  clergy,  and  through  them  on  the  people.  This  feeling  was 
augmented  by  the  ruthless  manner  in  which  churchly  censures, 
such  as  excommunication,  were  imposed  on  delinquent  tax 
payers.  The  papacy  seemed  extravagant  in  expenditure  and 
offensive  in  taxation,  and  its  repute  in  both  respects  was  to 
grow  worse  till  the  Reformation. 

The  collapse  of  the  imperial  power  in  Italy,  for  which  the 
papacy  was  largely  responsible,  and  the  transfer  to  Avignon, 
left  Italy  to  the  wildest  political  confusion.  Nowhere  was  the 
situation  worse  than  in  Rome.  In  1347  Cola  di  Rienzi  headed 
a  popular  revolution  against  the  nobles  and  established  a 
parody  of  the  ancient  republic.  He  was  soon  driven  out,  but 
in  1354  was  in  power  again,  only  to  be  murdered  in  the  parti 
san  struggles.  Innocent  VI  (1352-1362)  sent  the  Spanish  car 
dinal  Albornoz  ( ?-1367)  as  his  legate  to  Italy.  By  Albornoz's 
military  and  diplomatic  abilities  the  papal  interests  in  Rome 
and  Italy  generally  were  much  improved,  so  that  Urban  V 
(1362-1370)  actually  returned  to  the  Eternal  City  in  1367. 


THE  SCHISM  297 

The  death  of  Albornoz  deprived  him  of  his  chief  support,  and 
in  1370  the  papacy  was  once  more  in  Avignon.  Urban  V  was 
succeeded  by  Gregory  XI  (1370-1378),  whom  St.  Catherine  of 
Siena  (1347-1380)  urged  in  the  name  of  God  to  return  to  Rome. 
The  distracted  state  of  the  city  also  counselled  his  presence  if 
papal  interests  were  to  be  preserved.  Accordingly  he  trans 
ferred  the  papacy  to  Rome  in  1377,  and  there  died  the  next 
year. 

The  sudden  death  of  Gregory  XI  found  the  cardinals  in 
Rome.  A  majority  were  French,  and  would  gladly  have  re 
turned  to  Avignon.  The  Roman  people  were  determined  to 
keep  the  papacy  in  Rome,  and  to  that  end  to  have  an  Italian 
Pope.  Under  conditions  of  tumult  the  cardinals  chose  Barto- 
lommeo  Prignano  the  archbishop  of  Bari,  who  took  the  name 
Urban  VI  (1378-1389).  A  tactless  man,  who  desired  to  termi 
nate  French  influence  over  the  papacy,  and  effect  some  reforms 
in  the  papal  court,  he  soon  had  the  hostility  of  all  the  cardinals. 
They  now  got  together,  four  months  after  his  election,  declared 
their  choice  void  since  dictated  by  mob  violence,  and  elected 
Cardinal  Robert  of  Geneva  as  Pope  Clement  VII  (1378-1394). 
A  few  months  later  Clement  VII  and  his  cardinals  were  settled 
in  Avignon.  There  had  been  many  rival  Popes  before,  but 
they  had  been  chosen  by  different  elements.  Here  were  two 
Popes,  each  duly  elected  by  the  same  body  of  cardinals.  The 
objection  that  Urban  VI  had  been  chosen  out  of  fear  had  little 
force,  since  the  cardinals  had  recognized  him  without  protest 
for  several  months;  but  they  had  done  all  they  could  to  undo 
the  choice.  Europe  saw  two  Popes,  each  condemning  the 
other.  There  was  no  power  that  could  decide  between  them, 
and  the  several  countries  followed  the  one  or  the  other  as  their 
political  affinities  dictated.  The  Roman  Pope  was  acknowl 
edged  by  northern  and  central  Italy,  the  greater  part  of  Ger 
many,  Scandinavia,  and  England.  To  the  Pope  in  Avignon, 
France,  Spain,  Scotland,  Naples,  Sicily,  and  some  parts  of 
Germany  adhered.  It  was  a  fairly  equal  division.  The  great 
schism  had  begun.  Europe  was  pained  and  scandalized,  while 
the  papal  abuses,  especially  of  taxation,  were  augmented,  and 
two  courts  must  now  be  maintained.  Above  all,  the  profound 
feeling  that  the  church  must  be  visibly  one  was  offended.  The 
papacy  sank  enormously  in  popular  regard. 

In  Rome  Urban  VI  was  succeeded  by  Boniface  IX  (1389- 


298  WYCLIF 

1404),  and  he  by  Innocent  VII  (1404-1406),  who  was  followed 
by  Gregory  XII  (1406-1415).  In  Avignon  Clement  VII  was 
followed  by  a  Spaniard,  Peter  de  Luna,  who  took  the  name 
Benedict  XIII  (1394-1417). 

SECTION  XII.      WYCLIF  AND  HUSS 

The  English  opposition  to  the  encroachments  of  the  Avignon 
papacy  has  already  been  noted  (ante,  p.  295).  Other  forces 
were  also  working  in  the  island.  Of  these  that  of  Thomas 
Bradwardine  (?-1349)  was  one  of  the  most  potent  in  the  in 
tellectual  realm.  Bradwardine,  who  was  long  an  eminent  the 
ologian  in  Oxford,  and  died  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  was  a 
leader  in  the  revival  of  the  study  of  Augustine,  which  marked 
the  decline  of  Scholasticism,  and  was  to  grow  in  influence  till 
it  profoundly  affected  the  Reformation.  He  taught  predesti 
nation  in  most  positive  form;  like  Augustine,  he  conceived  re 
ligion  as  primarily  a  personal  relationship  of  God  and  the  soul, 
and  emphasized  grace  in  contrast  to  merit.  There  were  now, 
therefore,  other  intellectual  traditions  besides  those  of  later 
nominalistic  Scholasticism  in  the  Oxford  of  Wyclif's  student 
days. 

John  Wyclif  (?-1384)  was  born  in  Hipswell  in  Yorkshire. 
Few  details  of  his  early  life  are  known.  He  entered  Balliol 
College,  Oxford,  of  which  he  became  ultimately  for  a  short 
time  "master."  In  Oxford  he  rose  to  great  scholarly  distinc 
tion,  lecturing  to  large  classes,  and  esteemed  the  ablest  theo 
logian  of  its  faculty.  Philosophically  he  was  a  realist,  in  con 
trast  to  the  prevailing  nominalism  of  his  age.  He  was  deeply 
influenced  by  Augustine,  and  through  Augustine  by  Platonic 
conceptions.  Wyclif  gradually  became  known  outside  of  Ox 
ford.  In  1374  he  was  presented,  by  royal  appointment,  to 
the  rectory  of  Lutterworth,  and  the  same  year  was  one  of  the 
King's  commissioners — probably  theological  adviser — to  at 
tempt  in  Bruges  with  the  representatives  of  Pope  Gregory  XI 
an  adjustment  of  the  dispute  regarding  "provisors"  (ante, 
p.  295).  In  how  far  these  appointments  were  due  to  the  pow 
erful  son  of  King  Edward  III,  John  of  Gaunt,  Duke  of  Lancas 
ter,  is  uncertain,  though  he  probably  regarded  Wyclif  as  likely 
to  be  useful  in  his  designs  on  church  property;  but  Wyclif's 
opinions,  if  entertained  in  1374,  cannot  then  have  been  widely 


WYCLIF  299 

known.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Pope  yet  looked  on  him 
with  distrust,  and  recent  investigation  has  shown  that  his  re 
formatory  work  did  not  begin  in  1366,  as  formerly  supposed. 

By  1376,  however,  it  was  the  wealth  of  the  church  and  cleri 
cal  interference,  especially  that  of  the  Popes,  in  political  life, 
that  afoused  his  opposition.  He  lectured  that  year  in  Oxford 
On  Civil  Lordship.  Wyclif's  view  of  ecclesiastical  office  and 
privilege  was  curiously  feudal.  God  is  the  great  overlord.  He 
gives  all  positions,  civil  and  spiritual,  as  fiefs,  to  be  held  on 
condition  of  faithful  service.  They  are  lordships,  not  prop 
erty.  God  gives  the  use  but  not  the  ownership.  If  the  user 
abuses  his  trust  he  forfeits  his  tenure.  Hence  a  bad  ecclesiastic 
loses  all  claim  to  office,  and  the  temporal  possessions  of  un 
worthy  clergy  may  well  be  taken  from  them  by  the  civil  rulers, 
to  whom  God  has  given  the  lordship  of  temporal  things,  as  He 
has  that  of  things  spiritual  to  the  church.  This  doctrine,  ad 
vanced  in  all  simplicity  and  sincerity,  was  undoubtedly  pleas 
ing  to  John  of  Gaunt  and  his  hungry  crew  of  nobles  who  hoped 
for  enrichment  from  church  spoliation.  It  was  no  less  satis 
factory  to  many  commoners,  who  had  long  been  critical  of  the 
wealth,  pretensions,  and  too  often  lack  of  character  of  the 
clergy.  It  was  not  displeasing  to  the  mendicant  orders,  who 
had  always,  in  theory  at  least,  advocated  "  apostolic  poverty." 

Wyclif's  teaching  aroused  the  opposition  of  the  high  clergy, 
the  property-holding  orders,  and  of  the  papacy.  In  1377  he 
was  summoned  to  answer  before  the  bishop  of  London,  William 
Courtenay.  The  protection  of  John  of  Gaunt  and  other  nobles 
rendered  the  proceeding  abortive.  The  same  year  Pope 
Gregory  XI  issued  five  buj^  ordering  Wyclif's  arrest  and  ex 
amination.1  Yet  Wyclir"enjoyed  the  protection  of  a  strong 
party  at  court  and  much  popular  favor,  so  that  further  pro 
ceedings  against  him  by  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  the 
bishop  of  London  were  frustrated  in  1378. 

Wyclif  was  now  rapidly  developing  his  reformatory  activities 
in  a  flood  of  treatises  in  Latin  and  English.  The  Scriptures,  he 
taught,  are  the  only  law  of  the  church.  The  church  itself  is 
not,  as  the  common  man  imagined,  centred  in  the  Pope  and 
the  cardinals.  It  is  the  whole  company  of  the  elect.  Its  only 
certain  head  is  Christ,  since  the  Pope  may  not  be  one  of  the 
elect.  Wyclif  did  not  reject  the  papacy.  The  church  may 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  105-108. 


300  WYCLIF 

well  have  an  earthly  leader,  if  such  a  one  is  like  Peter,  and 
strives  for  the  simple  conditions  of  early  Christianity.  Such  a 
Pope  would  be  presumably  one  of  the  elect.  But  a  Pope  who 
grasps  worldly  power  and  is  eager  for  taxes  is  presumptively 
non-elect,  and  therefore  antichrist.  With  his  deeper  knowl 
edge  of  the  Bible,  Wyclif  now  attacked  the  mendicant  orders, 
which  had  supported  him  in  his  assertion  of  apostolic  poverty, 
regarding  them  as  without  Scriptural  warrant  and  the  main 
pillars  of  the  existing  papacy.  He  was  now  fighting  current 
churchly  conditions  all  along  the  line. 

Wyclif  now  proceeded  to  more  constructive  efforts.  Con 
vinced  that  the  Bible  is  the  law  of  God,  Wyclif  determined  to 
give  it  to  the  people  in  the  English  tongue.  Between  1382  and 
1384  the  Scriptures  were  translated  from  the  Vulgate.  What 
share  Wyclif  had  in  the  actual  work  is  impossible  to  say.  It 
has  been  usually  thought  that  the  New  Testament  was  from 
his  pen,  and  the  Old  from  that  of  Nicholas  of  Hereford.  At 
all  events,  the  New  Testament  translation  was  vivid,  readable, 
and  forceful,  and  did  a  service  of  fundamental  importance  for 
the  English  language — to  say  nothing  of  English  piety.  The 
whole  was  revised  about  1388,  possibly  by  Wyclif  s  disciple, 
John  Purvey.  Its  circulation  was  large.  In  spite  of  severe 
repression  in  the  next  century,  at  least  one  hundred  and  fifty 
manuscripts  survive. 

To  bring  the  Gospel  to  the  people  Wyclif  began  sending  out 
his  "poor  priests."  In  apostolic  poverty,  barefoot,  clad  in  long 
robes,  and  with  staff  in  the  hand,  they  wandered  two  by  two, 
as  had  the  early  Waldensian  or  Franciscan  preachers.  Unlike 
the  latter,  they  were  bound  by  no  permanent  vows.  Their 
success  was  great. 

But  events  soon  lamed  the  Lollard  movement,  as  the  follow 
ing  of  Wyclif  was  popularly  called.  Convinced  that  the  elect 
are  a  true  priesthood,  and  that  all  episcopal  claims  are  un- 
scriptural,  Wyclif  saw  in  the  priestly  power  of  exclusive  human 
agency  in  the  miracle  of  transubstantiation  a  main  buttress  of 
what  he  deemed  erroneous  priestly  claim.  He  therefore  at 
tacked  this  doctrine  in  1381.  His  own  view  of  Christ's  pres 
ence  seems  to  have  been  essentially  that  later  known  as  con- 
substantiation.  It  was  not  his  positive  assertions,  but  his 
attack,  however,  that  aroused  resentment,  for  to  oppose  tran 
substantiation  was  to  touch  one  of  the  most  popularly  cherished 


WYCLIF.    THE  LOLLARDS  301 

beliefs  of  the  later  Middle  Ages.  That  attaek  cost  Wyclif  many 
followers  and  roused  the  churchly  authorities  to  renewed  action. 
This  tide  of  opposition  was  strengthened  by  events  in  1381,  for 
which  Wyclif  was  in  no  way  responsible.  The  unrest  of  the 
lower  orders,  which  had  been  growing  since  the  dislocation  of 
the  labor  market  by  the  "  black  death  "  of  1348-1350,  culminated 
in  1381  in  a  great  peasant  revolt,  which  was  with  difficulty  put 
down.  This  bloody  episode  strengthened  the  party  of  con 
servatism.  In  1382  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  held  a 
synod  in  London  by  which  twenty-four  Wyclifite  opinions  were 
condemned.1  Wyclif  was  no  longer  able  to  lecture  in  Oxford. 
His  "poor  priests"  were  arrested.  He  was  too  strong  in  popu 
lar  and  courtly  support,  however,  to  be  attacked  personally, 
and  he  died  still  possessed  of  his  pastorate  in  Lutterworth  on 
the  last  day  of  1384. 

No  small  element  in  Wyclif  s  power  was  that  he  was  thought 
to  have  no  scholastic  equal  in  contemporary  England.  Men 
hesitated  to  cross  intellectual  swords  with  him.  Equally  con 
spicuous  were  his  intense  patriotism  and  his  deep  piety.  He 
voiced  the  popular  resentment  of  foreign  papal  taxation  and 
greed,  and  the  popular  longing  for  a  simpler,  more  Biblical 
faith.  It  was  his  misfortune  that  he  left  no  follower  of  con 
spicuous  ability  to  carry  on  his  work  in  England.  Yet  through 
out  the  reign  of  Richard  II  (1377-1399)  the  Lollard  movement 
continued  to  grow.  With  the  accession  of  the  usurping  house 
of  Lancaster  in  the  person  of  Henry  IV  (1399-1413),  the  King, 
anxious  to  placate  the  church,  was  persuaded  to  secure  the  pas 
sage  in  1401  of  the  statute  De  hasretico  comburendo,2  under  which 
a  number  of  Lollards  were  burned.  Henry  IV  spared  Lollards 
in  high  lay  station.  Not  so  his  son,  Henry  V  (1413-1422).  Un 
der  him  their  most  conspicuous  leader,  Sir  John  Oldcastle,  Lord 
Cobham,  a  man  of  the  sternest  religious  principles,  whom  tra 
dition  and  dramatic  license  transformed  into  the  figure  of 
FalstafT,  was  condemned,  driven  into  rebellion,  and  executed 
in  1417.  With  his  death  the  political  significance  of  Lollard  y 
in  England  was  at  an  end,  though  adherents  continued  in 
secret  till  the  Reformation.  Wyclif 's  chief  influence  was  to  be 
in  Bohemia  rather  than  in  the  land  of  his  birth. 

Bohemia  had  undergone  a  remarkable  intellectual  and  politi 
cal  development  in  the  fourteenth  century.  The  Holy  Roman 

'Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  108-110.  -Ibid.,  pp.  133-135. 


302  BOHEMIA.    JOHN  HUSS 

Emperor,  Charles  IV  (1346-1378)  was  also  King  of  Bohemia, 
and  did  much  for  that  land.  In  1344  he  secured  the  establish 
ment  of  Prague  as  an  archbishopric,  releasing  Bohemia  from  ec 
clesiastical  dependence  on  Mainz.  Four  years  later  he  procured 
the  foundation  of  a  university  in  Prague.  In  no  country  of 
Europe  was  the  church  more  largely  a  landholder,  or  the  clergy 
more  worldly  than  in  Bohemia.  Charles  IV  was  not  unfriendly 
to  moral  reform.  During  and  following  his  reign  a  series  of 
preachers  of  power  stirred  Bohemia,  attacking  the  seculariza 
tion  of  the  church.  Such  were  Conrad  of  Waldhausen  ( ?-1369), 
Milicz  of  Kremsier  (?-1374),  Matthias  of  Janov  (?-1394),  and 
Thomas  of  Stitny  (1331-1401).  These  all  opposed  clerical  cor 
ruption,  emphasized  the  Scriptures  as  the  rule  of  life,  and 
sought  a  more  frequent  participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Milicz  and  Matthias  taught  that  antichrist  was  at  hand,  and 
was  manifest  in  an  unworthy  clergy.  These  men  had  little 
direct  influence  on  Huss,  but  they  stirred  Bohemia  to  a  readi 
ness  to  accept  his  teachings. 

Bohemia  was  torn,  furthermore,  by  intense  rivalry  between 
the  Germanic  and  the  Slavonic  (Czech)  elements  of  the  popu 
lation.  The  latter  was  marked  by  a  strong  desire  for  racial 
supremacy  and  Bohemian  autonomy. 

Curiously,  also,  Bohemia,  hitherto  so  little  associated  with 
England,  was  brought  into  connection  with  that  country  by 
the  marriage  of  the  Bohemian  princess,  Anna,  to  King  Rich 
ard  II,  in  1383.  Bohemian  students  were  attracted  to  Oxford, 
and  thence  brought  Wyclif  s  doctrines  and  writings  into  their 
native  land,  especially  to  the  University  of  Prague.  The  great 
propagator  of  Bohemian  Wyclifism  was  to  be  John  Huss,  in 
whom,  also,  all  Czech  national  aspirations  were  to  have  an 
ardent  advocate.  It  was  this  combination  of  religious  and  pa 
triotic  zeal  that  gave  Huss  his  remarkable  power  of  leadership. 

John  Huss  was  born,  of  peasant  parentage,  in  Husinecz, 
whence  he  derived  his  name  by  abbreviation,  about  the  year 
1373.  His  studies  were  completed  in  the  University  of  Prague, 
where  he  became  Bachelor  of  Theology  in  1394,  and  Master  of 
Arts  two  years  lateiVr::^n-'1401  he  was  ordained  to  the  priest 
hood,  still  maintaining  a  teaching  connection  with  the  univer 
sity,  of  which  he  was  "rector"  in  1402^  Meanwhile  Huss  had 
become  intimately  acquainted  with  Wyclif's  philosophical 
treatises,  with  the  "realism"  of  which  he  sympathized.  Wye- 


JOHN  HUSS  303 

lif's  religious  works,  known  by  Huss  certainly  from  1402,  won 
his  approbation,  and  henceforth  Huss  was,  theologically,  a 
disciple  of  Wyclif.  More  conservative  than  his  master,  he 
did  not  deny*  transubstantiation ;  but  like  him  he  held  the 
church  to  consist  of  the  predestinate  only,  of  whom  the  true  head 
is  not  the  Pope,  but  Christ,  and  of  which  the  law  is  the  New 
Testament,  and  its  life  that  of  Christ-like  poverty.  Though 
the  publication  of  Huss's  commentary  on  the  Sentences  of 
Peter  Lombard  has  led  to  a  higher  estimate  of  his  scholarly 
gifts  than  formerly  prevailed,  it  is  certain  that  in  his  sermons 
and  treatises  Huss  usually  reproduced  not  only  the  thoughts 
but  the  language  of  Wyclif. 

In  1402  Huss  became  preacher  at  the  Bethlehem  chapel,  in 
Prague,  and  soon  gained  immense  popular  following  through 
his  fiery  sermons  in  the  Bohemian  language.  Though  Wyc- 
lifite  views  were  condemned  by  the  majority  of  the  university 
in  1403,  Huss's  preaching  had,  at  first,  the  support  of  the 
archbishop,  Zbynek  (1403-1411) ;  but  his  criticisms  of  the 
clergy  gradually  turned  this  favor  into  opposition,  which  was 
increased  as  Huss's  essential  agreement  with  Wyclif  constantly 
became  more  evident.  New  causes  of  dissent  speedily  arose. 
In  the  schism  Bohemia  had  held  to  the  Roman  Pope,  Gregory 
XII  (1406-1415).  As  a  step  toward  the  healing  of  the  breach 
King  Wenzel  of  Bohemia  now  favored  a  policy  of  neutrality 
between  the  rival  Popes.  Huss  and  the  Bohemian  element 
in  the  university  supported  Wenzel.  Archbishop  Zbynek,  the 
German  clergy,  and  the  German  portion  of  the  university  clung 
to  Gregory  XII.  Wenzel  therefore,  in  1409,  arbitrarily  changed 
the  constitution  of  the  university,  giving  the  foreign  majority 
one  vote  in  its  decisions  and  the  Bohemians  three,  thus  com 
pletely  reversing  the  previous  proportion.  The  immediate  re 
sult  was  the  secession  of  the  foreign  elements  and  the  founda 
tion,  in  1409,  of  the  University  of  Leipzig.  This  Bohemian 
nationalist  victory,  of  doubtful  permanent  worth  or  right, 
Huss  fully  shared.  Its  immediate  consequences  were  that  he 
became  the  first  "rector"  of  the  newly  regulated  university, 
and  enjoyed  a  high  degree  of  courtly  favor.  His  views  were 
now  spreading  widely  in  Bohemia. 

Meanwhile  the  luckless  Council  of  Pisa  had  run  its  course 
(1409)  (see  p.  307).  Zbynek  now  supported  its  Pope,  Alexander 
V  (1409-1410),  to  whom  he  complained  of  the  spread  of  Wye- 


304  HUSS  AT  CONSTANCE 

lifite  opinions  in  Bohemia,  and  by  whom  he  was  commissioned 
to  root  them  out.  Huss  protested,  and  was  excommunicated 
by  Zbynek  in  1410.  The  result  was  great  popular  tumult  in 
Prague,  where  Huss  was  more  than  ever  a  national  hero. 
King  Wenzel  supported  him.  In  1412  Alexander  V's  successor, 
Pope  John  XXIII  (1410-1415),  promised  indulgence  to  all  who 
should  take  part  in  a  crusade  against  King  Ladislaus  of  Naples. 
Huss  opposed,  holding  that  the  Pope  had  no  right  to  use  physi 
cal  force,  that  money  payments  effected  no  true  forgiveness, 
and,  unless  of  the  predestinate,  the  indulgence  could  be  of  no 
value  to  a  man.  The  result  was  an  uproar.  The  Pope's  bull 
was  burned  by  the  populace.  Huss,  however,  lost  many 
strong  supporters  in  the  university  and  elsewhere,  and  was 
once  more  excommunicated,  while  Prague  was  placed  under 
papal  interdict.  Wenzel  now  persuaded  Huss,  late  in  1412,  to 
go  into  exile  from  Prague.  To  this  period  of  retirement  is 
due  the  composition  of  his  chief  work — essentially  a  reproduc 
tion  of  Wyclif— the  De  Ecclesia  (On  the  Church).  In  1413  a 
synod  in  Rome  formally  condemned  Wyclif  s  writings. 

The  great  Council  of  Constance  (see  p.  308)  was  approaching, 
and  the  confusion  in  Bohemia  was  certain  to  demand  its  con 
sideration.  Huss  was  asked  to  present  himself  before  it,  and 
promised  a  "safe-conduct,"  afterward  received,  by  the  Holy 
Roman  Emperor,  Sigismund.  Huss,  though  he  felt  his  life  in 
grave  peril,  determined  to  go,  partly  believing  it  his  duty  to 
bear  witness  to  what  he  deemed  the  truth,  and  partly  convinced 
that  he  could  bring  the  council  to  his  way  of  thinking.  Shortly 
after  his  arrival  in  Constance  he  was  imprisoned.  Sigismund 
disregarded  his  promised  safe-conduct.  His  Bohemian  enemies 
laid  bitter  charges  against  him.  On  May  4,  1415,  the  council 
condemned  Wyclif,  and  ordered  his  long-buried  body  burned. 
Huss  could  hope  for  no  favorable  hearing.  Yet,  in  the  end, 
the  struggle  resolved  itself  into  a  contest  of  principles.  The 
council  maintained  that  every  Christian  was  bound  to  submit 
to  its  decisions.  Only  by  so  holding  could  it  hope  to  end  the 
papal  schism  which  was  the  scandal  of  Christendom.  It  in 
sisted  on  Huss's  complete  submission.  The  Bohemian  reformer 
was  of  heroic  mould.  He  would  play  no  tricks  with  his  con 
science.  Some  of  the  accusations  he  declared  false  charges. 
Other  positions  he  could  not  modify  unless  convinced  of  their 
error.  He  would  not  submit  his  conscience  to  the  overruling 


BOHEMIA  IX  REVOLT  305 

judgment  of  the  council.  On  July  0,  1415,  he  was  condemned 
and  burned,  meeting  his  death  with  the  most  steadfast  cour 
age. 

While  Huss  *vas  a  prisoner  in  Constance  his  followers  in 
Prague  began  administering  the  cup  to  the  laity  in  the  Lord's 
Supper— an  action  which  Huss  approved  and  which  soon  be 
came  the  badge  of  the  Hussite  movement.  The  news  of  Huss's 
death  aroused  the  utmost  resentment  in  Bohemia,  to  which 
fuel  was  added  when  the  Council  of  Constance  forbade  the  use 
of  the  cup  by  laymen;  and  caused  Huss's  disciple,  Jerome  of 
Prague,  to  be  burned  in  1416.  Bohemia  was  in  revolution. 
Two  parties  speedily  developed  there — an  aristocratic,  having 
its  principal  seat  in  Prague,  and  known  as  the  Utraquists 
(communion  in  both  bread  and  wine),  and  a  radical,  democratic, 
called  from  its  fortress,  the  Taborites. 

The  Utraquists  would  forbid  only  those  practices  which  they 
deemed  prohibited  by  the  "law  of  God,"  i.  e.,  the  Bible.  They 
demanded  free  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  the  cup  for  the  laity, 
apostolic  poverty,  and  strict  clerical  life.  The  Taborites  re 
pudiated  all  practices  for  which  express  warrant  could  not  be 
found  in  the  "law  of  God."  Fierce  quarrel  existed  between 
these  factions,  but  both  united  to  resist  repeated  crusades 
directed  against  Bohemia.  Under  the  leadership  of  the  blind 
Taborite  general,  John  Zizka,  all  attempts  to  crush  the  Huss 
ites  were  bloodily  defeated.  Church  property  was  largely 
confiscated.  Nor  were  the  opponents  of  the  Hussites  more 
successful  after  Zizka 's  death  in  1424.  Under  Prokop  the 
Great  the  Hussites  carried  the  war  beyond  the  borders  of 
Bohemia.  Some  compromise  seemed  unavoidable.  The  Coun 
cil  of  Basel  (see  p.  310),  after  long  negotiation,  therefore,  met 
the  wishes  of  the  Utraquists  part  way  in  1433,  granting  the 
use  of  the  cup,  and  in  a  measure  the  other  demands  outlined 
above.  The  Taborites  resisted  and  were  almost  swept  away 
by  the  Utraquists,  in  1434,  at  the  battle  of  Lipan,  in  which 
Prokop  was  killed.  The  triumphant  Utraquists  now  came  to 
an  agreement  with  the  Council  of  Basel,  in  1436,  and  on  these 
terms  were  nominally  given  place  in  the  Roman  communion. 
Yet,  in  1462  Pope  Pius  II  (1458-1464)  declared  this  agreement 
void.  The  Utraquists,  nevertheless,  held  their  own,  and  the 
Bohemian  Parliament,  in  1485  and  1512,  declared  their  full 
equality  with  the  Catholics.  At  the  Reformation  a  considera- 


306  WYCLIF  AND  HUSS 

ble  portion  welcomed  the  newer  ideas ;  others  then  returned  to 
the  Roman  Church. 

The  real  representatives  of  Wyclifite  principles  were  the 
Taborites  rather  than  the  Utraquists.  Out  of  the  general 
Hussite  movement,  with  elements  drawn  from  Taborites,  Utra 
quists,  and  Waldenses,  rather  than  exclusively  from  the  Tabor 
ites  there  grew,  from  about  1453,  the  Unitas  Fratrum,  which 
absorbed  much  that  was  most  vital  in  the  Hussite  movement, 
and  became  the  spiritual  ancestor  of  the  later  Moravians  (see 
pp.  502,  503). 

Wyclif  and  Huss  have  often  been  styled  forerunners  of  the 
Reformation.  The  designation  is  true  if  regard  is  had  to  their 
protest  against  the  corruption  of  the  church,  their  exaltation 
of  the  Bible,  and  their  contribution  to  the  sum  total  of  agita 
tion  that  ultimately  resulted  in  reform.  When  their  doctrines 
are  examined,  however,  they  appear  to  belong  rather  to  the 
Middle  Ages.  Their  conception  of  the  Gospel  was  that  of  a 
"law."  Their  place  for  faith  was  no  greater  than  in  the 
Roman  communion.  Their  thought  of  the  church  was  a  one 
sided  development  of  Augustinianism.  Their  conception  of 
the  relation  of  the  clergy  to  property  is  that  common  to  the 
Waldenses  and  the  founders  of  the  great  mendicant  orders. 
Their  religious  earnestness  commands  deep  admiration,  but  in 
spite  of  Luther's  recognition  of  many  points  of  agreement  with 
Huss,  the  Reformation  owed  little  to  their  efforts. 

SECTION  XIII.      THE  REFORMING  COUNCILS 

The  papal  schism  was  the  scandal  of  Christendom,  but  its 
termination  was  not  easy.  The  logic  of  mediaeval  develop 
ment  was  that  no  power  exists  on  earth  to  which  the  papacy 
is  answerable.  Yet  good  men  everywhere  felt  that  the  schism 
must  be  ended,  and  that  the  church  must  be  reformed  "  in  head 
and  members" — that  is,  in  the  papacy  and  clergy.  The  re 
forms  desired  were  moral  and  administrative.  Doctrinal  modi 
fications  were  as  yet  unwished  by  Christendom  as  a  whole.  A 
Wyclif  might  proclaim  them  in  England,  but  he  was  generally 
esteemed  a  heretic.  Foremost  among  those  who  set  themselves 
seriously  to  the  task  of  healing  the  schism  were  the  teachers  of 
the  age,  especially  those  of  the  University  of  Paris.  Marsilius  of 
Padua  had  there  proclaimed  the  supremacy  of  a  general  coun* 


GROWTH  OF  THE  CONCILIA!!  IDEA         307 

cil  in  his  Defensor  Pacis  of  1324.  The  necessities  of  the  situa 
tion  rather  than  his  arguments  were  rapidly  leading  to  the  same 
conclusion.  It  was  presented  first  with  clearness  by  a  doctor 
of  canon  law,  then  in  Paris,  Conrad  of  Gelnhausen  (1320?- 
1390),  who  advised  King  Charles  V  of  France  (1364-1380),  in 
written  treatises  of  1379  and  1380,  to  unite  with  other  princes 
in  calling  a  council,  if  necessary,  without  the  consent  of  the 
rival  Popes.  Conrad  went  no  further  than  to  hold  that  such 
a  council  was  justified  by  the  necessities  of  an  anomalous 
situation.  Conrad's  proposal  was  reinforced,  in  such  fashion 
as  to  rob  him  of  the  popular  credit  of  its  origination,  by  the 
treatise  of  another  German  scholar  at  the  University  of  Paris 
Heinrich  of  Langenstein  (1340?-1397),  set  forth  in  1381. 

The  thought  of  a  general  council  as  the  best  means  of  healing 
the  schism,  thus  launched,  made  speedy  converts,  not  only  in 
the  University  of  Paris,  but  in  the  great  school  of  canon  law  in 
Bologna,  and  even  among  the  cardinals.     To  call  a  council 
presented  many  difficulties,  however,  and  the  leaders  at  Paris 
Peter  of  Ailli  (Pierre  d'Ailli)   (1350-1420)  and  John  Gerson 
(Jean  Charher  de  Gerson)  (1363-1429),  famed  for  their  mastery 
of  nommalistic  theology,  and  the  latter  eminent  among  Chris 
tian  mystics,  were  slow  to  adopt  the  conciliar  plan.     Efforts 
were  vainly  made  for  years  to  induce  the  rival  Popes  to  resign. 
1 ranee  withdrew  from  the  Avignon  Pope,  without  recognizing 
the  Roman,  from  1398  to  1403,  and  again  in  1408;  but  its  ex 
ample  found  slight  following  elsewhere.     By  1408  d'Ailli  and 
Gerson  had  come  to  see  in  a  council  the  only  hope,  and  were 
supported  by  Nicholas  of  Clemanges  (1367-1437),  a  former 
teacher  of  the  Parisian  university  who  had  been  papal  secretary 
in  Avignon  from  1397  to  1405,  to  whom  one  great  source  of 
evil  in  the  church  seemed  the  general  neglect  of  the  Scriptures. 
The  cardinals  of  both  Popes  were  now  convinced  of  the 
necessity  of  a  council.    Meeting  together  in  Leghorn,  in  1408, 
they  now  issued  a  call  in  their  own  names  for  such  an  assembly 
m  Pisa,  to  gather  on  March  25,  1409.     There  it  met  with  an 
attendance  not  only  of  cardinals,  bishops,  the  heads  of  the  great 
orders,  and  leading  abbots,  but  also  of  doctors  of  theology  and 
canon  law,  and  the  representatives  of  lay  sovereigns.     Neither 
Pope  was  present  or  acknowledged  its  rightfulness.     Both  were 
declared  deposed.     This  was  a  practical  assertion  that  the 
council  was  superior  to  the  papacy.     Its  action,  however,  was 


308        COUNCILS  OF  PISA  AND  CONSTANCE 

too  hasty,  for  instead  of  ascertaining,  as  d'Ailli  advised,  whether 
the  person  of  the  proposed  new  Pope  would  be  generally  ac 
ceptable,  the  cardinals  now  elected  Peter  Philarges,  archbishop 
of  Milan,  who  took  the  name  Alexander  V  (1409-1410).  The 
council  then  dissolved,  leaving  the  question  of  reform  to  a 
future  council. 

In  some  respects  the  situation  was  worse  than  before  the 
Council  of  Pisa  met.  Rome,  Naples,  and  considerable  sections 
of  Germany  clung  to  Gregory  XII.  Spain,  Portugal,  and  Scot 
land  supported  Benedict  XIII.  England,  France,  and  some 
portions  of  Germany  acknowledged  Alexander  V.  There  were 
three  Popes  where  before  there  had  been  two.  Yet,  though 
mismanaged,  the  Council  of  Pisa  was  a  mark  of  progress.  It 
had  shown  that  the  church  was  one,  and  it  increased  the  hope 
that  a  better  council  could  end  the  schism.  This  assembly 
had  been  called  by  the  cardinals.  For  such  invitation  history 
had  no  precedent.  A  summons  by  the  Emperor,  if  possible 
with  the  consent  of  one  or  more  of  the  Popes,  would  be  con 
sonant  with  the  practice  of  the  early  church.  To  that  end 
those  supporting  the  council  idea  now  labored. 

The  new  Holy  Roman  Emperor-elect,  Sigismund  (1410- 
1437),  was  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  a  council.  He  recog 
nized  as  Pope  John  XXIII  (1410-1415),  one  of  the  least  worthy 
of  occupants  of  that  office,  who  had  been  chosen  successor  to 
Alexander  V  in  the  Pisan  line.  Sigismund  used  John's  diffi 
culties  with  King  Ladislaus  of  Naples,  to  secure  from  him 
joint  action  by  which  Emperor-elect  and  Pope  called  a  council 
to  meet  in  Constance  on  November  1,  1414.  There  the  most 
brilliant  and  largely  attended  gathering  of  the  Middle  Ages 
assembled.  As  in  Pisa,  it  included  not  only  cardinals  and 
bishops,  but  doctors  of  theology  and  representatives  of  mon- 
archs,  though  the  lay  delegates  were  without  votes.  Sigismund 
was  present  in  person,  and  also  John  XXIII. 

John  XXIII  hoped  to  secure  the  indorsement  of  the  council. 
To  this  end  he  had  brought  with  him  many  Italian  bishops. 
To  neutralize  their  votes  the  council  organized  by  "nations," 
the  English,  German,  and  French,  to  which  the  Italians  were 
forced  to  join  as  a  fourth.  Each  "nation"  had  one  vote,  and 
one  was  assigned  also  to  the  cardinals.  Despairing  of  the 
council's  approval,  John  XXIII  attempted  to  disrupt  its  ses 
sion  by  flight,  in  March,  1415.  Under  Gerson's  vigorous  lead- 


CONSTANCE;  THE  SCHISM  HEALED          309 

ership  the  council,  however,  declared  on  April  6,  1415,  that  as 
"representing  the  Catholic  Church  militant  [it]  has  its  power 
immediately  from  Christ,  and  every  one,  whatever  his  position 
or  rank,  even  if  it  be  the  papal  dignity  itself,  is  bound  to  obey 
it  in  all  those  things  which  pertain  to  the  faith,  to  the  healing 
of  the  schism,  and  to  the  general  reformation  of  the  Church  of 
God."1  On  May  29  the  council  declared  John  XXIII  deposed. 
On  July  4  Gregory  XII  resigned.  The  council  had  rid  the 
church  of  two  Popes  by  its  successful  assertion  of  its  supreme 
authority  over  all  in  the  church.  It  is  easy  to  see  why  its 
leaders  insisted  on  a  full  submission  from  Huss,  whose  trials 
and  martyrdom  were  contemporary  with  these  events  (ante, 
p.  304). 

Benedict  XIII  proved  more  difficult.  Sigismund  himself, 
therefore,  journeyed  to  Spain.  Benedict  he  could  not  persuade 
to  resign,  and  that  obstinate  pontiff  asserted  himself  till  death, 
in  1422  or  1423,  as  the  only  legitimate  Pope.  What  Sigismund 
was  unable  to  effect  with  Benedict  he  accomplished  with  the 
Spanish  kingdoms.  They  and  Scotland  repudiated  Benedict. 
The  Spaniards  joined  the  council  as  a  fifth  "nation,"  and,  on 
July  26,  1417,  Benedict,  or  Peter  de  Luna,  as  he  was  once  more 
called,  was  formally  deposed.  The  careful  action  of  the  coun 
cil,  in  contrast  to  the  haste  in  Pisa,  had  made  it  certain  that 
no  considerable  section  of  Christendom  would  support  the 
former  Popes. 

One  main  purpose  of  the  council  had  been  moral  and  ad 
ministrative  reform.  Here  the  jealousies  of  the  several  inter 
ests  prevented  achievement  of  real  importance.  The  cardinals 
desired  no  changes  that  would  materially  lessen  their  revenue. 
Italy,  on  the  whole,  profited  by  the  existing  situation.  England 
had  relative  self-government  already  in  ecclesiastical  affairs, 
thanks  to  its  Kings.  France  was  at  war  with  England,  and 
indisposed  to  unite  with  that  land.  So  it  went,  with  the  result 
that  the  council  finally  referred  the  question  of  reforms  to  the 
next  Pope  "in  conjunction  with  this  holy  council  or  with  the 
deputies  of  the  several  nations" — that  is>  each  nation  was  left 
to  make  the  best  bargain  it  could.  The  council  enumerated 
a  list  of  subjects  for  reform  discussion,  which  relate  almost 
entirely  to  questions  of  appointment,  taxation,  or  administra 
tion.2  As  a  reformatory  instrument  the  Council  of  Constance 

1  Robinson,  1 :  511.  *  Ibid.,  1 : 513. 


310      COUNCILS  OF  CONSTANCE  AND  BASEL 

was  a  bitter  disappointment.  Its  one  great  achievement  was 
that  it  ended  the  schism.  In  November,  1417,  the  cardinals, 
with  six  representatives  from  each  nation,  elected  a  Roman 
cardinal,  Otto  Colonna,  as  Pope.  He  took  the  name  Martin  V 
(1417-1431).  Roman  Christendom  had  once  more  a  single 
head.  In  April,  1418,  the  council  ended,  the  new  Pope  prom 
ising  to  call  another  in  five  years,  in  compliance  with  the  de 
cree  of  the  council.1 

The  Council  of  Constance  was  a  most  interesting  ecclesiasti 
cal  experiment.  It  secured  the  transformation  of  the  papacy 
from  an  absolute  into  a  constitutional  monarchy.  The  Pope 
was  to  remain  the  executive  of  the  church,  but  was  to  be  regu 
lated  by  a  legislative  body,  meeting  at  frequent  intervals  and 
representing  all  interests  in  Christendom. 

It  seemed  that  this  great  constitutional  change  had  really 
been  accomplished.  Martin  V  called  the  new  council  to  meet 
in  Pavia  in  1423.  The  plague  prevented  any  considerable 
attendance.  The  Pope  would  gladly  have  had  no  more  of 
councils.  The  Hussite  wars  distressed  Europe,  however  (ante, 
p.  305),  and  such  pressure  was  brought  to  bear  on  him  that  in 
January,  1431,  Martin  V  summoned  a  council  to  meet  in  Basel, 
and  appointed  Cardinal  Giuliano  Cesarini  his  legate  to  con 
duct  it.  Less  than  two  months  later  Martin  V  was  dead  and 
Eugene  IV  (1431-1447)  was  Pope.  The  council  opened  in 
July,  1431,  but  in  December  Eugene  ordered  it  adjourned,  to 
meet  in  Bologna  in  1433.  The  council  refused,  and  re-enacted 
the  declaration  of  Constance  that  it  was  superior  to  the  Pope. 
Thus,  almost  from  the  first,  bad  feeling  existed  between  the 
Council  of  Basel  and  the  papacy.  Mindful  that  jealousies  be 
tween  "nations"  had  frustrated  the  reform  plans  in  Constance, 
the  council  rejected  such  groupings,  and  instead  organized  four 
large  committees,  on  reform,  doctrine,  public  peace,  and  general 
questions.  It  began  its  work  with  great  vigor  and  promise  of 
success.  It  made  an  apparent  reconciliation  with  the  moder 
ate  Hussites  in  1433  (ante,  p.  305).  Roman  unity  seemed  re 
stored.  The  Pope  found  little  support  and,  before  the  close 
of  1433,  formally  recognized  the  council.  Its  future  seemed 
assured. 

The  Council  of  Basel  now  proceeded  to  those  administrative 
and  moral  reforms  which  had  failed  of  achievement  at  Con- 
1  Robinson,  1 : 512. 


EFFORTS  TO  REUNITE  CHRISTENDOM      311 

stance.  It  ordered  the  holding  of  a  synod  in  each  diocese  an 
nually,  and  in  each  archbishopric  every  two  years,  in  which 
abuses  should  be  examined  and  corrected.  It  provided  for  a 
general  councfl  every  ten  years.  It  reasserted  the  ancient 
rights  of  canonical  election  against  papal  appointments.  It 
limited  ^appeals  to  Rome.  It  fixed  the  cardinals  at  twenty-four 
in  number,  and  ordered  that  no  nation  should  be  represented 
by  more  than  a  third  of  the  college.  It  cut  off  the  annates  and 
the  other  more  oppressive  papal  taxes  entirely.  All  this  was 
good,  but  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  done  was  increasingly  a 
vindictive  attitude  toward  Pope  Eugene.  The  taxes  by  which 
the  papacy  had  heretofore  been  maintained  were  largely  abol 
ished,  but  no  honorable  support  of  the  papacy  was  provided  in 
their  stead.  This  failure  not  only  increased  the  anger  of  the 
papacy  but  caused  division  in  the  council  itself.  At  this  point 
a  great  opportunity  presented  itself,  of  which  Eugene  IV  made 
full  use,  and  regarding  which  the  council  so  put  itself  in  the 
wrong  as  to  ruin  its  prospects. 

The  Eastern  empire  was  now  hard  pressed  in  its  final  strug 
gles  with  the  conquering  Turks.  In  the  hope  of  gaining  help 
from  the  West  the  Emperor,  John  VIII  (1425-1448),  with  the 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  Joseph  II  (1416-1439)  and  Bes- 
sarion  (1395-1472),  the  gifted  archbishop  of  Nicsea,  were  ready 
to  enter  into  negotiation  for  the  union  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Churches.  Both  Pope  and  council  were  disposed  to  use  this 
approach  for  their  several  advantage.  The  majority  of  the 
council  would  have  the  Greeks  come  to  Avignon.  The  Pope 
offered  an  Italian  city,  which  the  Greeks  naturally  preferred. 
The  council  divided  on  the  issue  in  1437,  the  minority  seceding, 
including  Cesarini.  The  Pope  now  announced  the  transference 
of  the  council  to  Ferrara  to  meet  the  Greeks.  Thither  the 
minority  went,  and  there  in  March,  1438,  the  P]astern  Emperor, 
with  many  Oriental  prelates,  arrived.  The  Pope  had  practi 
cally  won.  An  event  so  full  of  promise  as  the  reunion  of 
Christendom  robbed  the  still  continuing  Council  of  Basel  of 
much  of  its  interest. 

The  Council  of  Ferrara,  which  was  transferred  to  Florence 
in  1439,  witnessed  protracted  discussion  between  Greeks  and 
Latins,  in  which  as  a  final  result  the  primacy  of  the  Pope  was 
accepted  in  vague  terms,  which  seemed  to  preserve  the  rights 
of  the  Eastern  patriarchs,  the  Greeks  retained  their  peculiarities 


312       FAILURE  OF  THE   COUNCIL  OF  BASEL 

of  worship  and  priestly  marriage,  while  the  disputed  filioque 
clause  of  the  creed  was  acknowledged  by  the  Greeks,  though 
with  the  understanding  that  they  would  not  add  it  to  the 
ancient  symbol.  Mark,  the  vigorous  archbishop  of  Ephesus,  re 
fused  agreement,  but  the  Emperor  and  most  of  his  ecclesiastical 
following  approved,  and  the  reunion  of  the  two  churches  was 
joyfully  proclaimed  in  July,  1439.  An  event  so  happy  greatly 
increased  the  prestige  of  Pope  Eugene  IV.  The  hollowness  of 
the  achievement  was  not  at  once  apparent.  Reunions  with 
the  Armenians,  and  with  certain  groups  of  Monophysites  and 
Nestorians,  were  also  announced  in  Florence  or  speedily  after 
the  council.  The  reconciliation  of  the  Armenians  in  1439  was 
the  occasion  of  a  famous  papal  bull  defining  the  mediaeval  doc 
trine  of  the  sacraments.  Yet  from  the  first  the  Oriental  monks 
were  opposed.  On  the  Greeks'  return  Mark  of  Ephesus  became 
the  hero  of  the  hour.  Bessarion,  whom  Eugene  had  made  a 
cardinal,  had  to  fly  to  Italy,  where  he  was  to  have  a  distin 
guished  career  of  literary  and  ecclesiastical  service.  No  effi 
cient  military  help  came  to  the  Greeks  from  the  West,  and  the 
capture  of  Constantinople  by  the  Turks  in  1453  permanently 
frustrated  those  political  hopes  which  had  inspired  the  union 
efforts  of  1439. 

Meanwhile  the  majority  in  Basel  proceeded  to  more  radical 
action  under  the  leadership  of  its  only  remaining  cardinal,  the 
able  and  excellent  but  dictatorial  Louis  d'Allemand  (1380?- 
1450).  In  1439  it  voted  Eugene  IV  deposed,  and  chose  as  his 
successor  a  half-monastic  layman,  Duke  Amadeus  of  Savoy, 
who  took  the  name  Felix  V.  By  this  time,  however,  the  Coun 
cil  of  Basel  was  fast  losing  its  remaining  influence.  Eugene  IV 
had  won,  and  was  succeeded  in  Rome  by  Nicholas  V  (1447- 
1455).  Felix  V  laid  down  his  impossible  papacy  in  1449.  The 
council  put  the  best  face  on  its  defeat  by  choosing  Nicholas  V 
his  successor,  and  ended  its  troubled  career.  Though  the  coun 
cil  idea  still  lived  and  was  to  be  powerful  in  the  Reformation 
age,  the  fiasco  in  Basel  had  really  ruined  the  hope  of  trans 
forming  the  papacy  into  a  constitutional  monarchy  or  of  effect 
ing  needed  reform  through  conciliar  action. 

Yet  if  the  council  thus  failed,  individual  nations  profited  by 
its  quarrel  with  the  papacy,  notably  France,  where  the  mon 
archy  was  coming  into  new  power  through  effective  resistance 
to  England  under  impulses  initiated  by  Joan  of  Arc  (1410?- 


NATIONAL  BARGAINS  313 

1431).  In  1438  King  Charles  VII  (1422-1461),  with  the  clergy 
and  nobles,  adopted  the  "pragmatic  sanction"  of  Bourges,  by 
which  the  greater  part  of  the  reforms  attempted  in  Basel  were 
enacted  into  law  for  France.  France  therefore  secured  relief 
from  the  most  pressing  papal  taxes  and  interferences,  and  this 
freedom -had  not  a  little  to  do  with  the  attitude  of  the  land 
previous  to  the  Reformation  age. 

Not  so  fortunate  was  Germany.  There  the  nobles  in  the 
Reichstag  in  Mainz  of  1439  adopted  an  "acceptation"  much 
resembling  the  French  "pragmatic  sanction";  but  the  divisions 
and  weakness  of  the  country  gave  room  to  papal  intrigue,  so 
that  its  provisions  were  practically  limited  by  the  Concordat 
of  Aschaffenburg  of  1448.  Certain  privileges  were  granted  to 
particular  princes;  but  Germany,  as  a  whole,  remained  under 
the  weight  of  the  papal  taxation. 

Throughout  the  period  of  the  councils  a  new  force  was  mani 
festing  itself — that  of  nationality.  The  Council  of  Constance 
had  voted  by  nations.  It  had  authorized  the  nations  to  make 
terms  with  the  papacy.  Bohemia  had  dealt  with  its  religious 
situation  as  a  nation.  France  had  asserted  its  national  rights. 
Germany  had  tried  to  do  so.  With  the  failure  of  the  councils 
to  effect  administrative  reform,  men  began  asking  whether  what 
they  had  sought  might  not  be  secured  by  national  action.  It 
was  a  feeling  that  was  to  increase  till  the  Reformation,  and 
greatly  to  influence  the  course  of  that  struggle. 

SECTION   XIV.      THE    ITALIAN    RENAISSANCE   AND    ITS   POPES 

The  most  remarkable  intellectual  event  contemporary  with 
the  story  of  the  papacy  in  Avignon  and  the  schism  was  the  be 
ginning  of  the  Renaissance.  That  great  alteration  in  mental 
outlook  has  been  treated  too  often  as  without  mediaeval  ante 
cedents.  It  is  coming  to  be  recognized  that  the  Middle  Ages 
were  not  uncharacterized  by  individual  initiative,  that  the  con 
trol  of  the  church  was  never  such  as  to  make  other-worldliness 
wholly  dominant,  and  that  the  literary  monuments  of  Latin 
antiquity,  at  least,  were  widely  known.  The  revival  of  Roman 
law  had  begun  contemporaneously  with  the  Crusades,  and  had 
attracted  increasing  attention  to  that  normative  feature  of 
ancient  thought,  first  in  Italy  and  later  in  France  and  Germany. 
Yet  when  all  these  elements  are  recognized,  it  remains  true  that 


314  RISE  OF  THE  RENAISSANCE 

the  Renaissance  involved  an  essentially  new  outlook  on  the 
world,  in  which  emphasis  was  laid  on  its  present  life,  beauty, 
and  satisfaction — on  man  as  man — rather  than  on  a  future 
heaven  and  hell,  and  on  man  as  an  object  of  salvation  or  of 
loss.  The  means  by  which  this  transformation  was  wrought 
was  a  reappreciation  of  the  spirit  of  classical  antiquity,  espe 
cially  as  manifested  in  its  great  literary  monuments. 

The  Renaissance  first  found  place  in  Italy.  Its  rise  was 
favored  by  many  influences,  among  which  three,  at  least,  were 
conspicuous.  The  two  great  dominating  powers  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  the  papacy  and  empire,  were  suddenly  lamed,  as  far  as 
Italy  was  concerned,  by  the  collapse  of  the  imperial  power  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  thirteenth  century  and  the  removal  of  the  pa 
pacy  to  Avignon  early  in  the  fourteenth.  The  commerce  of  It 
aly,  fostered  by  the  Crusades  and  continuing  after  their  close, 
had  led  to  a  higher  cultural  development  in  the  peninsula  than 
elsewhere  in  Europe.  The  intense  division  of  Italian  politics 
gave  to  the  cities  a  quality  of  life  not  elsewhere  existent,  ren 
dering  local  recognition  of  talent  easy,  and  tending  to  empha 
size  individualism. 

The  earliest  Italian  in  whom  the  Renaissance  spirit  was  a 
dominating  force  was  Petrarch  (1304-1374).  Brought  up  in 
Avignon,  and  in  clerical  orders,  his  real  interest  was  in  the 
revival  of  Latin  literature,  especially  the  writings  of  Cicero. 
A  diligent  student,  and  above  all  a  man  of  letters,  he  was  the 
friend  of  princes,  and  a  figure  of  international  influence.  Scho 
lasticism  he  despised.  Aristotle  he  condemned.  Though  really 
religious  in  feeling,  however  lacking  in  practice,  his  point  of 
view  was  very  unlike  the  mediaeval.  He  had,  moreover,  that 
lack  of  profound  seriousness,  that  egotistical  vanity  and  that 
worship  of  form  rather  than  of  substance  which  were  to  be 
characteristic  of  much  of  Italian  humanism;  but  he  aroused 
men  to  a  new  interest  in  antiquity  and  a  new  world-outlook. 
Petrarch's  friend  and  disciple  was  Boccaccio  (1313-1375),  now 
chiefly  remembered  for  his  Decameron,  but  greatly  influential  in 
his  own  age  in  promoting  the  study  of  Greek,  in  unlocking  the 
mysteries  of  classical  mythology,  and  in  furthering  humanistic 
studies  in  Florence  and  Naples. 

Greek  may  never  have  died  out  in  southern  Italy,  but  its 
humanistic  cultivation  began  when,  in  1360,  Boccaccio  brought 
Leontius  Pilatus  to  Florence.  About  1397  Greek  was  taught, 


THE  RENAISSANCE  315 

under  the  auspices  of  the  government  of  the  same  city,  by 
Manuel  Chrysoloras  (1355?-1415),  who  translated  Homer  and 
Plato.  The  Council  of  Ferrara  and  Florence  (1438-1439)  (ante, 
p.  311)  greatly  fostered  this  desire  to  master  the  treasures  of 
the  East  by  bringing  Greeks  and  Latins  together.  Bessarion 
(ante,  p.  312)  thenceforth  aided  the  work.  To  the  influence  of 
Gemistos  Plethon  (1355-1450),  another  Greek  attendant  on  this 
reunion  council,  was  due  the  founding  of  the  Platonic  Academy, 
about  1442,  by  Cosimo  de'  Medici  (1389-1464),  the  real  ruler 
of  Florence.  There  the  study  of  Plato  was  pursued  ardently, 
later,  under  the  leadership  of  Marsilio  Ficino  (1433-1499). 
Ficino,  who  became  a  priest,  combined  an  earnest  Christianity 
with  his  platonic  enthusiasm.  He  believed  a  return  to  the  Chris 
tian  sources  the  chief  need  of  the  time — a  feeling  not  shared 
by  the  majority  of  Italian  humanists,  but  to  be  profoundly 
influential  beyond  the  Alps,  as  propagated  by  his  admirers, 
Jacques  Le  Fevre  in  France  and  John  Colet  in  England.  Colet, 
in  turn,  transmitted  it  to  Erasmus.  Almost  as  influential  was 
Pico  della  Mirandola  (1463-1494),  whose  zeal  for  Hebrew  and 
knowledge  of  the  Kabala  were  to  influence  Reuchlin. 

Historical  criticism  was  developed  by  Lorenzo  Valla  (1405- 
1457),  who  exposed  the  falsity  of  the  Donation  of  Constantine 
(ante,  p.  204)  about  1440,  and  denied  the  composition  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed  by  the  Apostles.  He  criticised  the  rightfulness 
of  monastic  vows,  and  laid  the  foundation  of  New  Testament 
studies,  in  1444,  by  a  comparison  of  the  Vulgate  with  the  Greek. 

An  examination  of  the  dates  just  given  will  show  that  the 
Renaissance  movement  in  Italy  was  in  full  development  before 
the  fall  of  Constantinople,  in  1453.  By  the  middle  of  the  fif 
teenth  century  it  was  dominating  the  educated  class  in  Italy. 
In  general,  its  attitude  toward  the  church  was  one  of  indiffer 
ence.  It  revived  widely  a  pagan  point  of  view,  and  sought  to 
reproduce  the  life  of  antiquity  in  its  vices  as  well  as  its  virtues. 
Few  periods  in  the  world's  history  have  been  so  boastfully  cor 
rupt  as  that  of  the  Italian  Renaissance. 

The  Renaissance  movement  was  given  wings  by  a  great  in 
vention,  about  1440-1450 — that  of  printing  from  movable 
type.  Whether  Mainz  or  Strassburg,  in  Germany,  or  Haarlem 
in  Holland  was  its  birthplace  is  still  a  matter  of  learned  dispute. 
The  art  spread  with  rapidity,  and  not  only  rendered  the  posses 
sion  of  the  manv  the  books  which  had  heretofore  been  the 


316    THE  POPES  PATRONS  OF  THE  RENAISSANCE 

property  of  the  few,  but,  from  the  multiplication  of  copies, 
made  the  results  of  learning  practically  indestructible.  More 
than  thirty  thousand  publications  were  issued  before  1500. 

No  mention  of  the  Renaissance  could  fail  to  note  its  services 
to  art.  Beginnings  of  better  things  had  been  made,  indeed, 
in  Italy  before  its  influence  was  felt.  Cimabue  (1240?-1302?), 
Giotto"  (1267?-!  337),  and  Era  Angelico  (1387-1455)  belong  to 
the  pre-Renaissance  epoch,  remarkable  as  is  their  work.  With 
Masaccio  (1402-1429),  Filippo  Lippi  (1406-1469),  Botticelli 
(1444-1510),  and  Ghirlandajo  (1449-1494),  painting  advanced 
through  truer  knowledge  of  perspective,  greater  anatomical 
accuracy,  and  more  effective  grouping  to  the  full  noonday  of 
a  Leonardo  da  Vinci  (1452-1519),  a  Raphael  Sanzio  (1483- 
1520),  a  Michelangelo  Buonarroti  (1475-1564),  and  their 
mighty  associates.  Sculpture  received  a  similar  impulse  in 
the  work  of  Ghiberti  (1378-1455),  and  Donatello  (1386-1466) ; 
while  architecture  was  transformed  by  Brunelleschi  (1379-1446), 
Bramante  (1444?-1514),  and  Michelangelo.  Most  of  the  work 
of  these  great  artists,  however  classical  in  motive,  was  wrought 
in  the  service  of  the  church. 

The  most  conspicuous  early  seat  of  the  Italian  Renaissance 
was  Florence,  though  it  was  influential  in  many  cities.  With  the 
papacy  of  Nicholas  V  (1447-1455),  it  found,  for  the  first  time, 
a  mighty  patron  in  the  head  of  the  church,  and  Rome  became 
its  chief  home.  To  him  the  foundation  of  the  Vatican  library 
was  due.  The  next  Pope,  Alfonso  Borgia,  a  Spaniard,  who 
took  the  name  Calixtus  III  (1455-1458),  was  no  friend  of  hu 
manism,  and  was  earnestly  though  fruitlessly,  intent  on  a 
crusade  that  should  drive  the  Turks  from  the  recently  con 
quered  Constantinople.  In  Enea  Silvio  Piccolomini,  who  ruled 
as  Pius  II  (1458-1464),  the  papacy  had  a  remarkable  occupant. 
In  early  life  a  supporter  of  the  conciliar  movement,  and  active 
at  the  Council  of  Basel,  he  had  won  distinction  as  a  humanistic 
writer  of  decidedly  unclerical  tone.  Reconciled  to  Eugene  IV, 
he  became  a  cardinal,  and  ultimately  Pope,  now  opposing  all 
the  conciliar  views  that  he  had  once  supported,  and  forbidding 
future  appeals  to  a  general  council.  His  efforts  to  stir  Europe 
against  the  Turks  were  unavailing.  Yet,  in  spite  of  his  chang 
ing  and  self-seeking  attitude,  he  had  the  most  worthy  concep 
tion  of  the  duties  of  the  papal  office  of  any  Pope  of  the  latter 
half  of  the  fifteenth  century.  The  succeeding  Popes,  till  after 


THE  POPES  AS  ITALIAN  PRINCES  317 

the  dawn  of  the  Reformation,  were  patrons  of  letters  and 
artists,  great  builders  who  adorned  Rome  and  felt  the  full 
impulse  of  the  Renaissance. 

Meanwhile  a  change  had  come  over  the  ideals  and  ambitions 
of  the  papacy.  The  stay  in  Avignon  and  the  schism  had  ren 
dered  effective  control  in  the  States  of  the  Church  impossible. 
They  were  distracted  by  the  contests  of  the  people  of  Rome, 
and  especially  by  the  rivalries  of  the  noble  houses,  notably 
those  of  the  Colonna  and  the  Orsini.  Italy  had  gradually 
consolidated  iijto  five  large  states,  Venice,  Milan,  Florence, 
Naples,  or  the  Kingdom  of  the  Two  Sicilies,  as  it  was  called, 
and  the  States  of  the  Church,  though  many  smaller  territories 
remained  outside  these  larger  groups,  and  were  objects  of  con 
test.  The  politics  of  Italy  became  a  kaleidoscopic  effort  to 
extend  the  possessions  of  the  larger  powers,  and  to  match  one 
against  the  other,  in  which  intrigue,  murder,  and  duplicity  were 
employed  to  an  almost  unexampled  extent. 

Into  this  game  of  Italian  politics  the  papacy  now  fully 
plunged.  Its  desire  was  to  consolidate  and  increase  the  States 
of  the  Church  and  maintain  political  independence.  Its  ambi 
tions  and  its  aims  were  like  those  of  other  Italian  rulers.  The 
papacy  became  secularized  as  at  no  other  period  in  its  history, 
save  possibly  the  tenth  century.  Martin  V  (1417-1431),  the 
Pope  chosen  at  the  Council  of  Constance,  himself  a  Colonna, 
succeeded,  in  a  measure,  in  restoring  papal  authority  in  Rome. 
His  successor,  Eugene  IV  (1431-1447),  was  not  so  fortunate, 
and  spent  a  large  part  of  his  pontificate  in  Florence.  Nicholas 
V  (1447-1455),  the  humanist,  effectively  controlled  Rome  and 
strengthened  the  papal  authority — a  policy  which  was  con 
tinued  by  Calixtus  III  (1455-1458),  Pius  II  (1458-1464),  and 
Paul  II  (1464-1471).  With  Sixtus  IV  (1471-1484)  political 
ambition  took  almost  complete  control  of  the  papacy.  He 
warred  with  Florence,  he  sought  to  enrich  and  advance  his 
relatives,  he  aimed  to  extend  the  States  of  the  Church.  A 
patron  of  learning,  he  built  extensively.  The  Sistine  Chapel 
preserves  his  name.  All  these  endeavors  required  money,  and 
he  increased  papal  taxation  and  the  financial  abuses  of  the 
curia.  He  made  into  an  article  of  faith  the  wide-spread  belief 
that  indulgences  are  available  for  souls  in  purgatory  by  a  bull 
of  1476.1 

1  Kidd,  Documents  Illustrative  of  the  Continental  Reformation,  p.  3. 


318  THE  POPES  AS  ITALIAN  PRINCES 

The  next  Pope,  Innocent  VIII  (1484-1492),  was  of  weak  and 
pliant  nature,  notorious  through  the  open  manner  in  which 
he  sought  to  advance  the  fortunes  of  his  children,  his  extrava 
gant  expenditures,  and  his  sale  of  offices.  He  even  received  a 
pension  from  Sultan  Bayazid  II  for  keeping  the  latter's  brother 
and  rival,  Jem,  a  prisoner.  Innocent's  successor,  Alexander 
VI  (1492-1503),  a  nephew  of  Calixtus  III,  and  a  Spaniard 
(Rodrigo  Borgia),  obtained  the  papacy  not  without  bribery, 
and  was  a  man  of  unbridled  immorality,  though  of  considera 
ble  political  insight.  His  great  effort  was  to  advance  his  bas 
tard  children,  especially  his  daughter,  Lucrezia  Borgia,  by  ad 
vantageous  marriages,  and  his  unscrupulous  and  murderous 
son,  Cesare  Borgia,  by  aiding  him  to  carve  a  principality  out 
of  the  States  of  the  Church.  His  reign  saw  the  beginning  of 
the  collapse  of  Italian  independence  through  the  invasion  of 
Charles  VIII  of  France  (1483-1498),  in  1494,  in  an  attempt  to 
assert  the  French  King's  claim  to  the  throne  of  Naples.  In 
1499  Louis  XII  of  France  (1498-1515),  conquered  Milan,  and 
in  1503  Ferdinand  the  Catholic,  of  Spain  (1479-1516),  secured 
Naples.  Italy  became  the  wretched  battleground  of  French 
and  Spanish  rivalries. 

Under  such  circumstances  to  increase  the  temporal  power 
of  the  papacy  was  not  easy ;  but  the  task  was  achieved  by  the 
most  warlike  of  the  Popes,  Julius  II  (1503-1513),  nephew  of 
Sixtus  IV.  The  Orsini  and  Colonna  were  reconciled,  Cesare 
Borgia  driven  from  Italy,  the  cities  of  Romagna  freed  from 
their  Venetian  conquerors,  the  various  nations  in  Europe 
grouped  in  leagues,  with  the  result  that  the  French  were,  for 
the  time,  expelled  from  Italy.  In  this  contest  Louis  XII  se 
cured  a  parody  of  a  general  council  in  Pisa,  which  Pope  Julius 
answered  by  calling  the  Fifth  Lateran  Council  in  Rome.  It 
met  from  1512  to  1517,  and  though  reforms  were  ordered  it 
accomplished  nothing  of  importance.  Julius  II  was  undoubt 
edly  a  ruler  of  great  talents,  who  led  his  soldiers  personally,  and 
was  animated  by  a  desire  to  strengthen  the  temporal  power  of 
the  papacy,  rather  than  to  enrich  his  relatives.  As  a  patron  of 
art  and  a  builder  he  was  among  the  most  eminent  of  the  Popes. 

Julius  II  was  succeeded  by  Giovanni  de'  Medici,  who  took 
the  name  Leo  X  (1513-1521).  With  all  the  artistic  and  literary 
tastes  of  the  great  Florentine  family  of  which  he  was  a  member, 
he  combined  a  love  of  display  and  extravagant  expenditure. 


ST.  CATHERINE.    SAVONAROLA  319 

Far  less  warlikefthan  Julius  II,  and  free  from  the  personal  vices 
of  some  of  his  predecessors,  he  nevertheless  made  his  prime 
interests. the  enlargement  of  the  States  of  the  Church,  and  the 
balancing  of  the  various  factions  of  Italy,  domestic  and  foreign, 
for  the  political  advantage  of  the  papacy.  He  strove  to  ad 
vance  his  relatives.  In  1516  he  secured  by  a  "concordat"  with 
Francis  I  of  France  (1515-1547)  the  abolition  of  the  "Prag 
matic  Sanction"  (ante,  p.  313)  on  terms  which  left  to  the  King 
the  nomination  of  all  high  French  ecclesiastics  and  the  right 
to  tax  the  clergy,  while  the  annates  and  other  similar  taxes 
went  to  the  Pope.  The  next  year  a  revolt  began  in  Germany, 
the  gravity  of  which  Leo  never  really  comprehended,  which  was 
to  tear  half  of  Europe  from  the  Roman  obedience. 

Such  Popes  represented  the  Italian  Renaissance,  but  they 
in  no  sense  embodied  the  real  spirit  of  a  church  which  was  to 
millions  the  source  of  comfort  in  this  life  and  of  hope  for  that 
to  come.  A  revolution  was  inevitable.  Nor  did  such  a  pa 
pacy  represent  the  real  religious  life  of  Italy.  The  Renaissance 
affected  only  the  educated  and  the  upper  classes.  The  people 
responded  to  appeals  of  preachers  and  the  example  of  those 
they  believed  to  be  saints,  though  unfortunately  seldom  with 
lasting  results  save  on  individual  lives. 

Such  a  religious  leader,  when  the  Renaissance  was  young,  was 
St.  Catherine  (1347-1380),  the  daughter  of  a  dyer  of  Siena. 
A  mystic,  the  recipient  as  she  believed  of  divinely  sent  visions, 
she  was  a  practical  leader  of  affairs,  a  healer  of  family  quarrels, 
a  main  cause  in  persuading  the  papacy  to  return  from  Avignon 
to  Rome,  a  fearless  denouncer  of  clerical  evils,  and  an  am 
bassador  to  whom  Popes  and  cities  listened  with  respect. 
Her  correspondence  involved  counsel  of  almost  as  much  politi 
cal  as  religious  value  to  many  of  the  leaders  of  the  age  in 
church  and  state  alike. 

Even  more  famous  in  the  later  period  of  the  Renaissance  was 
Girolamo  Savonarola  of  Florence  (1452-1498).  A  native  of 
Ferrara,  intended  for  the  medical  profession,  a  refusal  of  mar 
riage  turned  his  thoughts  to  a  monastic  life.  In  1474  he  became 
a  Dominican  in  Bologna.  Eight  years  later  his  work  in  Flor 
ence  began.  At  first  little  successful  as  a  preacher,  he  came  to 
speak  with  immense  popular  effectiveness,  that  was  heightened 
by  the  general  conviction  which  he  himself  shared  that  he  was 
a  divinely  inspired  prophet,  He  was  in  no  sense  a  Protestant, 


320  SAVONAROLA 

His  religious  outlook  was  thoroughly  mediaeval.  The  French 
invasion  of  1494  led  to  a  popular  revolution  against  the  Medici, 
and  Savonarola  now  became  the  real  ruler  of  Florence,  which 
he  sought  to  transform  into  a  penitential  city.  A  semi-monastic 
life  was  adopted  by  man}^  of  the  inhabitants.  At  the  carnival 
seasons  of  1496  and  1497,  masks,  indecent  books  and  pictures 
were  burned.  For  the  time  being,  the  life  of  Florence  was 
radically  changed.  But  Savonarola  aroused  enemies.  The 
adherents  of  the  deposed  Medici  hated  him,  and  above  all, 
Pope  Alexander  VI,  whose  evil  character  and  misrule  Savon 
arola  denounced.  The  Pope  excommunicated  him  and  de 
manded  his  punishment.  Friends  sustained  him  for  a  while, 
but  the  fickle  populace  turned  against  him.  In  April,  1498,  he 
was  arrested,  cruelly  tortured,  and  on  May  23  hanged  and  his 
body  burned  by  the  city  government.  Not  the  least  of  Alex 
ander  VI's  crimes  was  his  persecution  of  this  preacher  of 
righteousness,  though  Savonarola's  death  was  due  quite  as 
much  to  Florentine  reaction  against  him  as  to  the  hostility  of 
the  Pope. 

SECTION   XV.      THE   NEW   NATIONAL  POWERS 

The  half-century  from  1450  to  1500  saw  a  remarkable  growth 
in  royal  authority  and  national  consciousness  in  the  western 
kingdoms  of  Europe.  France,  which  had  seemed  well-nigh 
ruined  by  the  long  wars  with  England,  from  1339  to  1453, 
came  out  of  them  with  the  monarchy  greatly  strengthened, 
since  these  struggles  had  been  immensely  destructive  to  the 
feudal  nobility.  Louis  XI  (1461-1483),  by  intrigue,  arms,  and 
tyranny,  with  the  aid  of  commoners,  broke  the  power  of  the 
feudal  nobility  and  secured  for  the  crown  an  authority  it  had 
not  hitherto  possessed.  His  son,  Charles  VIII  (1483-1498), 
was  able  to  lead  the  now  centralized  state  into  a  career  of  for 
eign  conquest  in  Italy  that  was  to  open  a  new  epoch  in  Euro 
pean  politics  and  give  rise  to  rivalries  that  were  to  determine 
the  political  background  of  the  whole  Reformation  age.  What 
these  Kings  had  attempted  in  centralization  at  home,  and  in 
conquest  abroad,  was  carried  yet  further  by  Louis  XII  (1498- 
1515),  and  by  the  brilliant  and  ambitious  Francis  I  (1515-1547). 
France  was  now  a  strong,  centralized  monarchy.  Its  church 
was  largely  under  royal  control,  and  to  a  considerable  degree 


THE  NEW  NATIONAL  POWERS  321 

relieved  of  the  worst  papal  abuses,  thanks  to  the  "  Pragmatic 
Sanction"  of  14&8  (ante,  p.  313) ;  and  the  custom  which  grew 
up  with  the  strengthening  of  the  monarchy  in  the  fifteenth 
century  that  appeals  could  be  taken  from  church  courts  to 
those  of  the  King.  The  control  of  the  monarchy  over  clerical 
appointments,  clerical  taxation,  and  clerical  courts  was  in 
creased  by  the  "concordat"  of  1516  (ante,  p.  319),  which  gave 
to  the  Pope  in  turn  desired  taxes.  By  the  dawn  of  the  Reforma 
tion  the  church  of  France  was,  in  many  respects,  a  state  church. 

In  England  the  Wars  of  the  Roses,  between  Yorkists  and 
Lancastrians,  from  1455  to  1485,  resulted  in  the  destruction  of 
the  power  of  the  high  nobility  to  the  advantage  of  the  crown. 
Parliament  survived.  The  King  must  rule  in  legal  form;  but 
the  power  of  a  Henry  VII  (1485-1509),  the  first  of  the  house 
of  Tudor,  was  greater  than  that  of  any  English  sovereign  had 
been  for  a  century,  and  was  exercised  with  almost  unlimited 
absolutism,  though  in  parliamentary  form,  by  his  even  abler 
son,  Henry  VIII  (1509-1547).  The  English  sovereigns  had 
attained,  even  before  the  Reformation,  a  large  degree  of  au 
thority  in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  and,  as  in  France,  the  church  in 
England  was  largely  national  at  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  cen 
tury. 

This  nationalizing  process  was  nowhere  in  so  full  develop 
ment  as  in  Spain,  where  it  was  taking  on  the  character  of  a  re 
ligious  awakening,  which  was  to  make  that  land  a  pattern  for 
the  conception  of  reform,  often,  though  not  very  correctly,  called 
the  Counter-Reformation — a  conception  that  was  to  oppose 
the  Teutonic  ideal  of  revolution,  and  was  ultimately  able  to 
hold  the  allegiance  of  half  of  Europe  to  a  purified  Roman  Church. 
The  rise  of  Spain  was  the  political  wonder  of  the  latter  part  of 
the  fifteenth  century.  Aside  from  the  main  currents  of  medi 
aeval  European  life,  the  history  of  the  peninsula  had  been  a 
long  crusade  to  throw  off  the  Mohammedan  yoke,  which  had 
been  imposed  in  711.  Nowhere  in  Europe  were  patriotism 
and  Catholic  orthodoxy  so  interwoven.  The  struggle  had  re 
sulted,  by  the  thirteenth  century,  in  the  restriction  of  the 
Moors  to  the  kingdom  of  Granada,  and  in  the  formation  of 
four  Christian  kingdoms,  Castile,  Aragon,  Portugal,  and  Na 
varre.  These  states  were  weak,  and  the  royal  power  limited 
by  the  feudal  nobility.  A  radical  change  came  when  the  pros 
pective  rulership  of  the  larger  part  of  the  peninsula  was  united, 


322  THE  SPANISH  REFORM 

in  1469,  by  the  marriage  of  Ferdinand,  heir  of  Aragon  (King, 
1479-1516)  with  Isabella,  heiress  of  Castile  (Queen,  1474-1504). 
Under  their  joint  sovereignty  Spain  took  a  new  place  in  Euro 
pean  life.  The  disorderly  nobles  were  repressed.  The  royal 
authority  was  asserted.  In  1492  Granada  was  conquered  and 
Mohammedanism  overcome.  The  same  year  witnessed  the 
discovery  of  a  new  world  by  Columbus,  under  Spanish  auspices, 
which  speedily  became  a  source  of  very  considerable  revenue 
to  the  royal  treasury.  The  French  invasions  of  Italy  led  to 
Spanish  interference,  which  locjged  Spain  firmly  in  Naples  by 
1503,  and  soon  rendered  Spanish  influence  predominant  through 
out  Italy.  On  Ferdinand's  death,  in  1516,  these  great  posses 
sions  passed  to  his  grandson,  already  heir  of  Austria  and  the 
Netherlands,  and  to  wear  the  imperial  title  as  Charles  V. 
Spain  had  suddenly  become  the  first  power  in  Europe. 

The  joint  sovereigns,  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  devoted  them 
selves  no  less  energetically  to  the  control  of  the  church  than  to 
the  extension  of  their  temporal  authority.  The  "Spanish 
awakening"  was  in  no  sense  unique.  It  did  not  differ  in  prin 
ciple  from  much  that  had  been  attempted  elsewhere  in  the 
later  Middle  Ages.  No  nation  with  a  history  like  that  of 
Spain  could  desire  doctrinal  change.  It  was  intensely  devoted 
to  the  system  of  which  the  papacy  was  the  spiritual  head. 
But  it  believed  that  papal  aggressions  in  administrative  affairs 
should  be  limited  by  royal  authority,  and  that  an  educated, 
moral,  and  zealous  clergy  could,  by  the  same  power,  be  encour 
aged  and  maintained.  It  was  by  reason  of  the  success  with 
which  these  results  were  accomplished  that  the  Spanish  awak 
ening  became  the  model  of  the  "Counter-Reformation." 

No  more  conscientious  or  religiously  minded  sovereign  ever 
ruled  than  Isabella,  and  if  Ferdinand  was  primarily  a  politician, 
he  was  quick  to  see  the  political  advantages  of  a  policy  that 
would  place  the  Spanish  church  in  subjection  to  the  crown. 
In  1482  the  joint  sovereigns  forced  Pope  Sixtus  IV  to  agree 
to  a  concordat  placing  nomination  to  the  higher  ecclesiastical 
posts  in  the  royal  control.  The  policy  thus  begun  was  speedily 
extended  by  the  energetic  sovereigns.  Papal  bulls  now  re 
quired  royal  approval  for  promulgation.  Church  courts  were 
supervised.  The  clergy  were  taxed  for  the  benefit  of  the  state. 

Ferdinand  and  Isabella  now  proceeded  to  fill  the  important 
stations  in  the  Spanish  church  not  only  with  men  devoted  to 


FERDINAND,  ISABELLA,  AND   XIMENES      323 

the  royal  interests,  but  of  strenuous  piety  and  disciplinary  zeal. 
In  this  effort  they  had  the  aid  of  many  men  of  ability,  but  chief 
among  them  stood  Gonzalez  (or  Francisco)  Ximenes  de  Cis- 
neros  (1436-1517),  in  whom  the  Spanish  awakening  had  its 
typical  representative. 

Born  of  a  family  of  the  lower  nobility,  Ximenes  went  to  Rome 
after  studies  in  Alcala  and  Salamanca.  On  his  return,  in  1465, 
after  six  years  in  the  seat  of  the  papacy,  he  showed  great  ability 
in  church  business  and  much  talent  as  a  preacher.  About 
1480  he  was  appointed  vicar-general  of  the  diocese  by  Men- 
doza,  then  bishop  of  Siguenza.  In  the  full  tide  of  success 
Ximenes  now  renounced  all  his  honors  and  became  a  Franciscan 
monk  of  the  strictest  observance.  Not  content  with  these 
austerities,  he  adopted  the  hermit's  life.  In  1492,  however, 
on  recommendation  of  Mendoza,  now  become  archbishop  of 
Toledo,  Queen  Isabella  appointed  Ximenes  her  confessor,  and 
consulted  him  in  affairs  of  state  as  well  as  questions  of  con 
science.  Queen  and  confessor  worked  in  harmony,  and  under 
their  vigorous  action  a  thoroughgoing  reform  of  discipline  was 
undertaken  in  the  disorderly  monasteries  of  the  land.  Ximenes's 
influence  was  but  increased  when,  in  1495,  on  Isabella's  insist 
ence,  and  against  his  own  protests,  he  became  Mendoza's 
successor  in  the  archbishopric  of  Toledo,  not  only  the  highest 
ecclesiastical  post  in  Spain,  but  one  with  which  the  grand- 
chancellorship  of  Castile  was  united.  Here  he  maintained  his 
ascetic  life.  Supported  by  the  Queen,  he  turned  all  the  powers 
of  his  high  office  to  rid  Spain  of  unworthy  clergy  and  monks. 
No  opposition  could  thwart  him,  and  more  than  a  thousand 
monks  are  said  to  have  left  the  peninsula  rather  than  submit 
to  his  discipline.  The  moral  character  and  zeal  of  the  Span 
ish  clergy  were  greatly  improved. 

Ximenes,  though  no  great  scholar,  saw  the  need  of  an  edu 
cated  clergy.  He  had  encountered  Renaissance  influences  in 
Rome,  and  would  turn  them  wholly  to  the  service  of  the  church. 
In  1498  he  founded  the  University  of  Alcala  de  Henares,  to 
which  he  devoted  a  large  part  of  his  episcopal  revenues,  and 
where  he  gathered  learned  men,  among  them  four  professors 
of  Greek  and  Hebrew.  A  quarter  of  a  century  later  Alcala 
counted  seven  thousand  students.  Though  opposed  to  general 
reading  of  the  Bible  by  the  laity,  Ximenes  believed  that  the 
Scriptures  should  be  the  principal  study  of  the  clergy.  The 


324  THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION 

noblest  monument  of  this  conviction  is  the  Complutensian 
Polyglot  (Alcala  =  Complutum),  on  which  he  directed  the  labor 
from  1502  to  1517.  The  Old  Testament  was  presented  in  He 
brew,  Greek,  and  Latin,  with  the  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch ; 
the  New  Testament  in  Greek  and  Latin.  The  New  Testament 
was  in  print  by  1515.  To  Ximenes  belongs  the  honor,  there 
fore,  of  first  printing  the  New  Testament  in  Greek,  though  as 
papal  permission  for  publication  could  not  be  obtained  till 
1520,  the  Greek  Testament,  issued  in  1516,  by  Erasmus,  was 
earlier  on  the  market. 

The  less  attractive  side  of  Ximenes's  character  is  to  be  seen 
in  his  willingness  to  use  force  for  the  conversion  of  the  Moham 
medans.  In  affairs  of  state  his  firmness  and  wisdom  were  of 
vast  service  to  Isabella,  Ferdinand,  and  Charles  V,  till  his 
death  in  1517. 

The  intellectual  impulse  thus  inaugurated  by  Ximenes  led 
ultimately  to  a  revival  of  the  theology  of  Aquinas,  begun  by 
Francisco  de  Vittoria  (?-1546)  in  Salamanca,  and  continued 
by  Vittoria's  disciples,  the  great  Roman  theologians  of  the 
early  struggle  with  Protestantism,  Domingo  de  Soto  (1494- 
1560)  and  Melchior  Cano  (1525-1560). 

Characteristic  of  the  Spanish  awakening  was  the  reorganiza 
tion  of  the  inquisition.  The  Spanish  temper  viewed  orthodoxy 
and  patriotism  as  essentially  one,  and  regarded  the  mainte 
nance  of  their  religions  by  Jews  and  Mohammedans,  or  relapse 
by  such  of  those  dissenters  as  had  embraced  Christianity,  as 
perils  to  church  and  state  alike.  Accordingly,  in  1480,  Ferdi 
nand  and  Isabella  established  the  inquisition,  entirely  under 
royal  authority,  and  with  inquisitors  appointed  by  the  sovereign. 
It  was  this  national  character  that  was  the  distinguishing 
feature  of  the  Spanish  inquisition,  and  led  to  protests  by  Pope 
Sixtus  IV,  to  which  the  sovereigns  turned  deaf  ears.  Supported 
by  the  crown,  it  speedily  became  a  fearful  instrument,  under  the 
leadership  of  Tomas  Torquemada  (1420-1498).  Undoubtedly 
its  value  in  breaking  the  independence  of  the  nobles  and  re 
plenishing  the  treasury  by  confiscation  commended  it  to  the 
sovereigns,  but  its  chief  claim  to  popular  favor  was  its  repres 
sion  of  heresy  and  dissent. 

Spain  had,  therefore,  at  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
the  most  independent  national  church  of  any  nation  in  Europe, 
in  which  a  moral  and  intellectual  renewal — not  destined  to  be 


THE  CONDITION  OF  GERMANY  325 

permanent — was  in  more  vigorous  progress  than  elsewhere; 
yet  a  church  intensely  mediaeval  in  doctrine  and  practice,  and 
fiercely  intolerant  of  all  heresy. 

In  Germany  the  situation  was  very  different.  The  empire 
lacked  all  real  unity.  The  imperial  crown,  in  theory  elective, 
was  worn  by  members  of  the  Austrian  house  of  Habsburg  from 
1438  to  1740,  but  the  Emperors  had  power  as  possessors  of 
their  hereditary  lands,  rather  than  as  holders  of  imperial  au 
thority.  Under  Frederick  III  (1440-1493)  wars  between  the 
princes  and  cities  and  the  disorder  of  the  lower  nobility,  who 
lived  too  often  by  what  was  really  highway  robbery,  kept  the 
land  in  a  turmoil  which  the  Emperor  was  powerless  to  suppress. 
Matters  were  somewhat  better  under  Maximilian  I  (1493- 
1519),  and  an  attempt  was  made  to  give  stronger  central  au 
thority  to  the  empire  by  frequent  meetings  of  the  old  feudal 
Reichstag,  the  establishment  of  an  imperial  supreme  court 
(1495),  and  the  division  of  the  empire  into  districts  for  the 
better  preservation  of  public  peace  (1512).  Efforts  were  made 
to  form  an  imperial  army  and  collect  imperial  taxes.  These 
reforms  had  little  vitality.  The  decisions  of  the  court  could 
not  be  enforced  nor  the  taxes  collected.  The  Reichstag  was, 
indeed,  to  play  a  great  role  in  the  Reformation  days,  but  it 
was  a  clumsy  parliament,  meeting  in  three  houses,  one  of  the 
imperial  electors,  the  second  of  lay  and  spiritual  princes,  and 
the  third  of  delegates  from  the  free  imperial  cities.  The  lower 
nobles  and  the  common  people  had  no  share  in  it. 

The  imperial  cities  were  an  important  element  in  German 
life,  owning  no  superior  but  the  feeble  rule  of  the  Emperor. 
They  were  industrious  and  wealthy,  but  they  were  far  from 
democratic  in  their  government,  and  were  thoroughly  self- 
seeking  as  far  as  the  larger  interests  of  Germany  were  con 
cerned.  Their  commercial  spirit  led  them  to  resist  the  exac 
tions  of  clergy  and  princes  alike. 

In  no  country  of  Europe  was  the  peasantry  in  a  state  of 
greater  unrest,  especially  in  southwestern  Germany,  where  in 
surrections  occurred  in  1476,  1492,  1512,  and  1513.  The  peas 
ants  were  serfs — a  condition  that  had  passed  away  in  England, 
and  largely  in  France.  Their  state  had  been  made  rapidly 
worse  by  the  substitution  of  the  Roman  law — a  law  made  largely 
for  slaves — for  the  old  legal  customs,  and  by  the  close  of  the 
fifteenth  century  they  were  profoundly  disaffected. 


326    RIVALRIES  OF  FRANCE  AND  THE  HABSBURGS 

Yet  if  German  national  life  as  a  whole  was  thus  disordered 
and  dissatisfied,  the  larger  territories  of  Germany  were  growing 
stronger,  and  developing  a  kind  of  semi-independent  local 
national  life  in  themselves.  This  was  notably  true  of  Aus 
tria,  electoral  and  ducal  Saxony,  Bavaria,  Brandenburg,  and 
Hesse.  The  power  of  their  rulers  was  increasing,  and  they  were 
beginning  to  exercise  a  local  authority  in  churchly  affairs,  con 
trolling  the  nomination  of  bishops  and  abbots,  taxing  the 
clergy,  and  limiting  to  some  extent  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction. 
This  local  territorial  churchmanship  had  not  gone  far,  but  that 
it  existed  was  of  the  utmost  importance  in  giving  a  framework 
which  the  Reformation  was  rapidly  to  develop  when  Roman 
obedience  was  rejected. 

The  years  preceding  the  Reformation  witnessed  two  marriages 
by  the  Habsburg  rulers  of  Austria  of  the  utmost  importance 
for  the  political  background  of  the  Reformation  age.  In  1477 
the  death  of  Charles  the  Bold,  the  ambitious  duke  of  Burgundy, 
left  the  heirship  of  his  Burgundian  territories  and  the  Nether 
lands  to  his  daughter,  Mary.  Her  marriage  that  year,  with 
Maximilian  I,  to  the  dissatisfaction  of  Louis  XI  of  France, 
who  seized  upper  Burgundy,  sowed  the  seeds  of  quarrel  between 
the  Kings  of  France  and  the  Habsburg  line  which  were  largely 
to  determine  the  politics  of  Europe  till  1756.  Philip,  the  son 
of  Maximilian  and  Mary,  in  turn  married  Juana,  heiress  of 
Ferdinand  and  Isabella  of  Spain.  So  it  came  about  that 
Philip  and  Juana's  son,  Charles,  became  possessor  of  Austria, 
the  Netherlands,  and  the  wide-extended  Spanish  territories  in 
Europe  and  the  New  World — a  larger  sovereignty  than  had 
been  held  by  a  single  ruler  since  Charlemagne — to  which  the 
imperial  title  was  added  in  1519.  Charles  V  became  heir  also 
to  the  rivalry  between  the  Habsburg  line  to  which  he  belonged 
and  the  Kings  of  France.  That  rivalry  and  the  struggle  for 
religious  reform  were  to  interplay  throughout  the  Reformation 
age,  constantly  modifying  each  other. 

SECTION  XVI.      RENAISSANCE   AND   OTHER   INFLUENCES 
NORTH   OF  THE   ALPS 

Though  the  fifteenth  century  was  a  notable  period  of  uni 
versity  foundation  in  Germany — no  less  than  twelve  coming 
into  existence  between  1409  and  1506 — these  new  creations  did 


HUMANISM  IN  GERMANY  327 

not  owe  their  existence  to  the  Renaissance.  They  grew  partly 
out  of  a  strong  desire  for  learning,  but  even  more  from  the 
ambition  of  the  larger  territorial  rulers  to  possess  such  schools 
in  their  own  lands.  An  influence  favorable  to  the  ultimate 
triumph  of  humanism  was  the  revival  of  the  older  realistic 
mediaeval  theology,  and  a  tendency  to  go  back  of  even  the 
earlier  schoolmen  to  Augustine,  and  to  Neo-Platonic  rather 
then  Aristotelian  conceptions.  These  revivals  were  strongly 
represented  in  the  University  of  Paris  by  the  last  quarter  of 
the  fifteenth  century,  and  spread  thence  to  German  univer 
sities  with  considerable  following.  They  made  for  many  the 
bridge  to  humanism,  and  they  rendered  possible  that  domi 
nance  of  Augustinian  conceptions  which  was  to  be  character 
istic  of  the  Reformation  age. 

The  Renaissance  beyond  the  Alps  was  inaugurated  by  con 
tact  with  Italian  humanists  at  the  Councils  of  Constance  and 
Basel,  but  it  did  not  become  a  powerful  influence  till  near  the 
close  of  the  fifteenth  century.  Its  conquests  were  earlier  in 
Germany  than  in  France,  England,  or  Spain.  Some  considera 
ble  impulse  was  given  by  the  learned  mathematician  and  phi 
losopher,  Nicholas  of  Cues  (1401-1464),  who  collected  a  nota 
ble  library.  He  died  a  cardinal  and  bishop  of  Brixen.  Many 
of  its  earlier  representatives  in  Germany  were  little  fitted, 
however,  to  commend  it  to  the  serious-minded.  German  stu 
dents  brought  home  from  Italy  the  love  of  the  classics,  and 
also  the  loose  living  too  often  characteristic  of  the  Italian 
Renaissance.  Such  were  men  like  the  vagabond  poet,  Peter 
Luder,  who  passed  from  university  to  university,  a  disreputable 
exponent  of  the  new  learning,  from  1456  to  1474.  A  very  differ 
ent  teacher,  who  had  studied  in  Italy,  was  Rudolf  Agricola 
(1443-1485),  who  closed  his  life  as  professor  in  Heidelberg.  A 
man  of  worth  and  influence,  he  did  much  to  further  classical 
education  in  the  fitting  schools.  Through  Agricola's  disciple, 
Alexander  Hegius,  who  dominated  the  school  in  Deventer  from 
1482  to  1498,  that  foundation  became  a  centre  of  classical  in 
struction,  of  which  Erasmus  was  to  be  the  most  famous  pupil. 
By  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century  a  great  improvement  in 
the  teaching  of  Latin  had  taken  place  in  the  secondary  schools 
of  Germany. 

Humanism  found  footing  in  the  universities,  not  without 
severe  struggle.  Its  earliest  conquest  was  the  University  of 


328  REUCHLIN 

Vienna,  wliere  the  semi-pagan  Latin  poet,  Conrad  Celtes  (1459- 
1508),  enjoyed  the  patronage  of  the  humanistically  inclined 
Emperor,  Maximilian  I.  By  the  first  decade  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  humanism  was  pressing  into  the  Universities  of  Basel, 
Tubingen,  Ingolstadt,  Heidelberg,  and  Erfurt.  It  also  found 
many  patrons  in  the  wealthy  commercial  cities,  notably  in 
Nuremberg,  Strassburg,  and  Augsburg.  So  numerous  were 
its  sympathizers  by  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century  that 
learned  circles  were  being  formed,  like  the  Rhenish  Literary 
Association,  organized  by  Celtes  in  Mainz,  in  1491,  the  mem 
bers  of  which  corresponded,  circulated  each  other's  works,  and 
afforded  mutual  assistance.  By  1500  humanism  was  becoming 
a  vital  factor  in  Germany. 

German  humanism  presented  many  types,  but  was,  in  gen 
eral,  far  less  pagan  and  more  serious-minded  than  that  of  Italy. 
Many  of  its  leaders  were  sincere  chruchmen,  anxious  to  reform 
and  purify  religious  life.  It  is  to  be  seen  at  its  best  in  its  two 
most  famous  representatives,  Reuchlin  and  Erasmus. 

Born  in  humble  circumstances,  in  Pforzheim,  in  1455,  Johann 
Reuchlin  early  gained  local  reputation  as  a  Latinist,  and  was 
sent  as  companion  to  the  young  son  of  the  margrave  of  Baden 
to  the  University  of  Paris,  about  1472.  Here,  in  Paris,  he 
began  the  study  of  Greek,  instruction  in  which  had  been  offered 
there  since  1470.  In  1477  he  received  the  master's  degree  in 
Basel,  and  there  taught  Greek.  Even  before  his  graduation  he 
published  a  Latin  dictionary  (1475-1476).  He  studied  law  in 
Orleans  and  Poitiers,  and  in  later  life  was  much  employed  in 
judicial  positions;  but  his  interests  were  always  primarily 
scholarly.  The  service  of  the  count  of  Wiirttemberg  took  him 
to  Florence  and  Rome  in  1482 — cities  which  he  visited  again 
in  1490  and  1498.  At  Florence,  even  on  his  first  visit,  his  ac 
quaintance  with  Greek  commanded  admiration.  There  he  met 
and  was  influenced  by  the  scholars  of  the  Platonic  Academy 
(ante,  p.  315),  and  from  Pico  della  Mirandola  (ante,  p.  315)  he 
acquired  that  strange  interest  in  Kabalistic  doctrines  that 
added  much  to  his  fame  in  Germany.  Reuchlin  was  regarded 
as  the  ablest  Greek  scholar  of  the  closing  years  of  the  fifteenth 
century  in  Germany,  and  his  influence  in  promotion  of  Greek 
studies  was  most  fruitful. 

Reuchlin  had  the  Renaissance  desire  to  return  to  the  sources, 
and  this  led  him,  first  of  non-Jewish  scholars  in  Germany,  to 


ERASMUS  329 

make  a  profound  study  of  Hebrew  that  he  might  the  better 
understand  the  Old  Testament.  The  fruit  of  twenty  years  of 
this  labor  was  the  publication  in  1506  of  a  Hebrew  grammar 
and  lexicon — De  Rudimentis  Hebraicis — which  unlocked  the 
treasures  of  that  speech  to  Christian  students.  The  bitter 
quarrel  into  which  the  peace-loving  scholar  was  drawn  by 
reason  of  these  Hebrew  studies,  and  with  him  all  educated  Ger 
many,  will  be  described  in  treating  of  the  immediate  antece 
dents  of  the  Lutheran  revolt.  Reuchlin  was  no  Protestant. 
He  refused  approval  to  the  rising  Reformation,  which  he  wit 
nessed  till  his  death  in  1522.  But  he  did  a  service  of  immense 
importance  to  Biblical  scholarship,  and  his  intellectual  heir 
was  to  be  his  grandnephew,  that  scholar  among  the  reformers, 
Philip  Melanchthon. 

Desiderius  Erasmus  was  born  out  of  wedlock  in  Rotterdam, 
or  Gouda,  probably  in  1466.  The  school  in  Deventer  awakened 
his  love  of  letters  (ante,  p.  327).  His  poverty  drove  him  into 
an  Augustinian  monastery  in  Steyn,  but  he  had  no  taste  for  the 
monastic  life,  nor  for  that  of  the  priesthood,  to  which  he  was 
ordained  in  1492.  By  1495  he  wras  studying  in  Paris.  The 
year  1499  saw  him  in  England,  where  he  made  the  helpful 
friendship  of  John  Colet,  who  directed  him  toward  the  study 
of  the  Bible  and  the  Fathers.  A  few  years  of  studious  labors, 
chiefly  in  France  and  the  Netherlands,  saw  him  once  more  in 
England,  in  1505,  then  followed  a  three  years'  sojourn  in  Italy. 
In  1509  he  again  returned  to  England,  and  now  taught  in  the 
University  of  Cambridge,  enjoying  the  friendship  of  many 
of  the  most  distinguished  men  of  the  kingdom.  The  years 
1515-1521  were  spent  for  the  most  part  in  the  service  of  Charles 
V  in  the  Netherlands.  From  1521  to  his  death  in  1536  Basel, 
where  he  could  have  ample  facilities  for  publication,  was 
his  principal  home.  He  may  thus  be  called  a  citizen  of  all 
Europe. 

Erasmus  was  not  an  impeccable  Latinist.  His  knowledge  of 
Greek  \vas  rather  superficial.  He  was,  above  all,  a  man  of 
letters,  who  touched  the  issues  of  his  time  with  consummate 
wit  and  brilliancy  of  expression;  set  forth  daring  criticism  of 
clergy  and  civil  rulers,  and  withal  was  moved  by  deep  sincerity 
of  purpose.  Convinced  that  the  church  of  his  day  was  over 
laid  with  superstition,  corruption,  and  error,  and  that  the 
monastic  life  was  too  often  ignorant  and  unworthy,  he  had  yet 


330  ERASMUS 

no  wish  to  break  with  the  church  that  he  so  freely  criticised. 
He  was  too  primarily  intellectual  to  have  sympathy  with  the 
Lutheran  revolution,  the  excesses  of  which  repelled  him.  He 
was  too  clear-sighted  not  to  see  the  evils  of  the  Roman  Church. 
Hence  neither  side  in  the  struggle  that  opened  in  the  latter 
part  of  his  life  understood  him,  and  his  memory  has  been  con 
demned  by  polemic  writers,  Protestant  and  Catholic.  His 
own  thought  was  that  education,  return  to  the  sources  of 
Christian  truth,  and  flagellation  of  ignorance  and  immorality 
by  merciless  satire  would  bring  the  church  to  purity.  To  this 
end  he  labored.  His  Handbook  of  the  Christian  Soldier  of  1502 
was  a  simple,  earnest  presentation  of  an  unecclesiastical  Chris 
tianity,  largely  Stoic  in  character.  His  Praise  of  Folly  of  1509 
was  a  biting  satire  on  the  evils  of  his  age  in  church  and  state. 
His  Familiar  Colloquies  of  1518  were  witty  discussions  in  which 
fastings,  pilgrimages,  and  similar  external  observances  were 
the  butts  of  his  brilliant  pen.  His  constructive  work  was  of 
the  highest  importance.  In  1516  came  the  first  edition  of  his 
Greek  Testament,  the  pioneer  publication  of  the  Greek  text, 
for  that  of  Ximenes  was  still  inaccessible  (ante,  p.  324).  This 
was  followed  by  a  series  of  the  Fathers — Jerome,  Origen,  Basil, 
Cyril,  Chrysostom,  Irenseus,  Ambrose,  and  Augustine,  not  all 
wholly  from  his  pen,  but  all  from  his  impulse,  which  placed 
scholarly  knowledge  of  early  Christianity  on  a  new  plane,  and 
profoundly  aided  a  Reformation,  the  deeper  religious  springs 
of  which  Erasmus  never  understood.  Erasmus  rendered  a  ser 
vice  for  the  Christian  classics,  much  like  that  of  the  Italian 
humanists  for  the  pagan  writers  of  Greece  and  Rome. 

Yet  Erasmus  did  something  more  than  revive  a  knowledge 
of  Christian  sources.  In  a  measure,  he  had  a  positive  theology. 
To  him  Christianity  was  but  the  fullest  expression  through 
Christ,  primarily  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  of  universal, 
essentially  ethical  religion,  of  which  the  philosophers  of  an 
tiquity  had  also  been  bearers.  He  had  little  feeling  for  the 
sacramental  or  for  the  deeply  personal  elements  in  religion.  A 
universal  ethical  theism,  having  its  highest  illustration  in 
Christ,  was  his  idea.  His  way  of  thinking  was  to  have  little 
influence  on  the  Reformation  as  a  whole,  though  much  on 
Socinianism,  and  is  that  represented  in  a  great  deal  of  modern 
theology,  of  which  he  was  thus  the  spiritual  ancestor. 

Though  Germany  was  more  largely  influenced  by  the  Re- 


THE  SERVICE  OF  HUMANISM  331 

naissance  at  tfye  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  than  any 
other  land  beyond  the  Alps,  the  same  impulses  were  stirring 
elsewhere.  The  efforts  of  Ximenes  in  Spain  have  already  been 
noted  (hnte,  p.  324).  In  England  John  Colet  (1467?-1519) 
was  introducing  educational  reforms  and  lecturing  on  the  epis 
tles  of  Paul  in  Oxford  and  London.  His  influence  in  turning 
Erasmus  to  Biblical  studies  was  considerable  (ante,  p.  329). 
He  rejected  all  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  criti 
cised  clerical  celibacy  and  auricular  confession,  and  desired 
to  better  the  education  and  morals  of  the  clergy.  As  the  six 
teenth  century  dawned  humanism  was  gaining  constantly  in 
creasing  following  in  England,  and  King  Henry  VIII  (1509- 
1547)  was  deemed  its  patron. 

The  situation  in  France  was  similar.  The  chief  representa 
tive  of  a  churchly  reformatory  humanism  was  Jaques  Le  Fevre, 
of  Etaples  (1455-1536),  most  of  whose  active  years  were  spent 
in  or  near  Paris.  A  modest,  kindly  little  man,  of  mystical 
piety,  he  published  a  Latin  translation  and  commentary  on 
Paul's  epistles  in  1512,  which  denied  the  justifying  merits  of 
good  works  and  held  salvation  a  free  gift  from  God.  He  never 
perceived,  however,  any  fundamental  difference  between  him 
self  and  the  Roman  Church;  but  he  gathered  round  himself 
a  body  of  devoted  pupils,  destined  to  most  unlike  participa 
tion  in  the  Reformation  struggle,  Guillaume  Briconnet,  to  be 
bishop  of  Meaux;  Guillaume  Bude,  eminent  in  Greek  and  to 
be  instrumental  in  founding  the  College  de  France;  Louis  de 
Berquin,  to  die  a  Protestant  martyr;  and  Guillaume  Farel,  to 
be  the  fiery  reformer  of  French-speaking  Switzerland. 

To  all  these  religious-minded  humanists  the  path  of  reform 
seemed  similar.  Sound  learning,  the  study  and  preaching  of 
the  Bible  and  the  Fathers,  and  the  correction  of  ignorance, 
immorality,  and  glaring  administrative  abuses  would  make 
the  church  what  it  should  be.  This  solution  did  not  meet  the 
deep  needs  of  the  situation;  but  the  humanists  rendered  an 
indispensable  preparation  for  the  Reformation.  They  led  men 
to  study  Christian  sources  afresh.  They  discredited  the  later 
scholastic  theology.  They  brought  in  new  and  more  natural 
methods  of  exegesis.  To  a  large  degree  they  looked  on  life 
from  another  standpoint  than  the  mediaeval.  They  repre 
sented  a  release  of  the  mind,  in  some  considerable  measure, 
from  mediaeval  traditionalism. 


332  PUBLICATION  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Partly  as  a  result  of  the  Renaissance  emphasis  on  the  sources, 
but  even  more  in  consequence  of  the  invention  of  printing,  the 
latter  half  of  the  fifteenth  century  witnessed  a  wide  distribu 
tion  of  the  Bible  in  the  Vulgate  and  in  translation.  No  less 
than  ninety-two  editions  of  the  Vulgate  were  put  forth  before 
1500.  Eighteen  editions  of  a  German  version  were  printed 
before  1521.  The  New  Testament  was  printed  in  French  in 
1477;  the  whole  Bible  ten  years  later;  1478  saw  the  publica 
tion  of  a  Spanish  translation;  1471  the  printing  of  two  inde 
pendent  versions  in  Italian.  In  the  Netherlands  the  Psalms 
were  seven  times  published  between  1480  and  1507.  The 
Scriptures  were  printed  in  Bohemian  in  1488.  If  England  had 
no  printed  Bible  before  the  Reformation,  many  manuscripts  of 
Wyclif's  translation  were  in  circulation. 

Efforts  were  made  to  restrict  the  reading  of  the  Bible  by  the 
laity,  since  its  use  seemed  the  source  of  mediaeval  heresies;  but 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  familiarity  with  it  much  increased 
among  the  less  educated  priesthood  and  among  laymen.  Yet 
the  real  question  of  the  influence  of  this  Bible  reading  is  the 
problem^  of  Biblical  interpretation.  The  Middle  Ages  never 
denied  the  final  authority  of  the  Bible.  Augustine  and  Aqui 
nas  so  regarded  it.  It  was  the  Bible  interpreted,  however, 
by  the  Fathers,  the  teachers,  and  the  councils  of  the  church. 
Should  that  churchly  right  to  interpret  be  denied,  there  re 
mained  only  the  right  of  private  interpretation;  but  the  voices 
from  Bohemia  and  the  mediaeval  sects  which  denied  the  inter 
preting  authority  of  the  church,  found  no  general  response  as 
yet.  The  commanding  word  had  yet  to  be  spoken.  The  mere 
reading  of  the  Bible  involved  no  denial  of  mediaeval  ideals. 
Only  when  those  ideals  were  rejected  could  the  interpreting 
authority  which  supported  them  be  denied  and  the  Bible  be 
come  the  support  of  the  newer  conceptions  of  salvation  and  of 
the  church.  The  Bible  was  not  so  much  the  cause  of  Protes 
tantism  as  was  Protestantism  a  new  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures. 

The  closing  years  of  the  fifteenth  century  were,  as  has  been 
rfeen,  a  period  of  religious  betterment  in  Spain.  No  such  cor 
responding  revival  of  interest  in  religion  is  to  be  traced  in 
France  or  England;  but  Germany  was  undergoing  a  real  and 
pervasive  religious  quickening  in  the  decades  immediately  pre 
ceding  the  Reformation.  Its  fundamental  motive  seems  to 


UNREST  IX  GERMANY  333 

have  been  feaiy  Much  in  the  popular  life  of  Germany  tended 
to  increase  the  sense  of  apprehension.  The  witchcraft  delusion, 
though  by  no  means  new,  was  rapidly  spreading.  A  bull  of 
Pope  Innocent  VIII  in  1484  declared  Germany  full  of  witches, 
and  the  German  inquisitors,  Jakob  Sprenger  and  Heinrich 
Kramer,  published  their  painfully  celebrated  Malleus  Malefi- 
carum  in  1489.  It  was  a  superstition  that  added  terror  to 
popular  life,  and  was  to  be  shared  by  the  reformers  no  less 
than  by  their  Roman  opponents.  The  years  from  1490  to 
1503  were  a  period  of  famine  in  Germany.  The  Turkish  peril 
was  becoming  threatening.  The  general  social  unrest  has  al 
ready  been  noted  (ante,  p.  325).  All  these  elements  contributed 
to  the  development  of  a  sense  of  the  reality  and  nearness  of 
divine  judgments,  and  the  need  of  propitiating  an  angry  God. 
Luther's  early  religious  experiences  were  congenial  to  the  spirit 
of  this  pervasive  religious  movement. 

The  religious  spirit  of  Germany  at  the  close  of  the  fifteenth 
century  found  expression  in  pilgrimages.  A  few  of  the  more 
wealthy  journeyed  to  the  Holy  Land,  more  went  to  Rome, 
but  the  most  popular  foreign  pilgrimage  shrine  was  that  of 
St.  James  at  Compostella  in  Spain.  German  pilgrim  shrines 
were  thronged,  and  great  collections  of  relics  were  made,  no 
tably  by  the  Saxon  Elector,  Frederick  the  Wise  (1486-1525),  to 
be  Luther's  protector,  who  placed  them  in  the  castle  church,  to 
the  door  of  which  Luther  was  to  nail  his  famous  Theses.  The 
intercession  of  Mary  was  never  more  sought,  and  Mary's 
mother,  St.  Anna,  was  but  little  less  valued.  Christ  was  popu 
larly  regarded  as  a  strict  judge,  to  be  placated  with  satisfac 
tions  or  absolutions. 

Yet  side  by  side  with  this  external  and  work-trusting  religious 
spirit,  Germany  had  not  a  little  of  mystic  piety,  that  saw  the 
essence  of  religion  in  the  relation  of  the  individual  soul  to  God ; 
and  a  good  deal  of  what  has  been  called  "non-ecclesiastical 
religion,"  which  showed  itself  not  only  in  simple,  serious  lives, 
like  that  of  Luther's  father,  but  in  increasing  attempts  of  lay 
princes  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  clergy,  of  towns  to  regu 
late  beggary,  to  control  charitable  foundations,  which  had 
been  in  exclusive  ecclesiastical  hands,  and  in  various  ways  to 
vindicate  for  laymen,  as  such,  a  larger  share  in  the  religious 
life  of  the  community.  The  active  life  was  asserting  its  claims 
against  the  contemplative.  Theology,  as  such,  had  largely 


334          CONTRASTED  TYPES  OF  RELIGION 

lost  its  hold  on  popular  thought,  discredited  by  nominalism, 
despised  by  humanism,  and  supplanted  by  mysticism. 

It  was  no  dead  age  to  which  Luther  was  to  speak,  but  one 
seething  with  unrest,  vexed  with  multitudinous  unsolved  prob 
lems  and  unfulfilled  longings. 


PERIOD  VI.    THE  REFORMATION 

SECTION  I.   THE  LUTHERAN  REVOLUTION 

THE  religious  and  economic  situation  of  Germany  at  the 
beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  in  many  respects  criti 
cal.  Papal  taxation  and  papal  interference  with  churchly 
appointments  were  generally  deemed  oppressive.  The  expedi 
tion  of  clerical  business  by  the  papal  curia  was  deemed  expen 
sive  and  corrupt.  The  clergy  at  home  were  much  criticised 
for  the  unworthy  examples  of  many  of  their  number  in  high 
station  and  low.  The  trading  cities  were  restive  under  clerical 
exemptions  from  taxation,  the  prohibition  of  interest,  the  many 
holidays,  and  the  churchly  countenance  of  beggars.  Monas 
teries  were  in  many  places  in  sore  need  of  reform,  and  their 
large  landed  possessions  were  viewed  with  ill  favor,  both  by 
the  nobles  who  would  gladly  possess  them,  and  the  peasantry 
who  labored  on  them.  The  peasantry  in  general  were  in  a 
state  of  economic  unrest,  not  the  least  of  their  grievances 
being  the  tithes  and  fees  collected  by  the  local  clergy.  Added 
to  these  causes  of  restlessness  were  the  intellectual  ferment  of 
rising  German  humanism  and  the  stirrings  of  popular  religious 
awakening,  manifested  in  a  deepening  sense  of  terror  and  con 
cern  for  salvation.  It  is  evident  that,  could  these  various 
grievances  find  bold  expression  in  a  determined  leader,  his  voice 
would  find  wide  hearing. 

In  the  intellectual  world  of  Germany,  moreover,  division 
was  being  greatly  intensified  by  a  quarrel  involving  one  of  the 
most  peace-loving  and  respected  of  humanists,  Reuchlin  (ante, 
p.  328),  and  uniting  in  his  support  the  advocates  of  the  new 
learning.  Johann  Pfefferkorn  (1469-1522),  a  convert  from 
Judaism,  procured  an  order  from  the  Emperor,  Maximilian, 
in  1509,  confiscating  Jewish  books  as  doing  dishonor  to  Chris 
tianity.  The  archbishop  of  Mainz,  to  whom  the  task  of  in 
quiry  was  intrusted,  consulted  Reuchlin  and  Jakob  Hoch- 
straten  (1460-1527),  the  Dominican  inquisitor  in  Cologne. 
They  took  opposite  sides.  Hochstraten  supported  Pfeffer- 

335 


336      HUMANISTS  AGAINST  CONSERVATIVES 

korn,  while  Reuchlin  defended  Jewish  literature  as  with  slight 
exceptions  desirable,  urged  a  fuller  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  and 
the  substitution  of  friendly  discussion  with  the  Jews  for  the 
confiscation  of  their  books.  A  storm  of  controversy  was  the 
result.  Reuchlin  was  accused  of  heresy  and  put  on  trial  by 
Hochstraten.  The  case  was  appealed  to  Rome,  and  dragged 
till  1520,  when  it  was  decided  against  Reuchlin.  The  advo 
cates  of  the  new  learning,  however,  looked  upon  the  whole 
proceeding  as  an  ignorant  and  unwarranted  attack  on  scholar 
ship,  and  rallied  to  Reuchlin's  support. 

From  this  humanistic  circle  came,  in  1514  and  1517,  one  of 
the  most  successful  satires  ever  issued — the  Letters  of  Obscure 
Men.  Purporting  to  be  written  by  opponents  of  Reuchlin  and 
the  new  learning,  they  aroused  wide-spread  ridicule  by  their 
barbarous  Latinity,  their  triviality,  and  their  ignorance,  and 
undoubtedly  created  the  impression  that  the  party  opposed 
to  Reuchlin  was  hostile  to  learning  and  progress.  Their  author 
ship  is  still  uncertain,  but  Crotus  Rubeanus  (1480?-1539?)  of 
Dornheim  and  Ulrich  von  Hutten  (1488-1523)  certainly  had 
parts  in  it.  Hutten,  vain,  immoral,  and  quarrelsome,  but 
brilliantly  gifted  as  a  writer  of  prose  and  verse,  and  undoubt 
edly  patriotic,  was  to  give  support  of  dubious  worth  to  Luther 
in  the  early  years  of  the  Reformation  movement.  The  effect 
of  the  storm  raised  over  Reuchlin  was  to  unite  German  human 
ists,  and  to  draw  a  line  of  cleavage  between  them  and  the  con 
servatives,  of  whom  the  Dominicans  were  the  most  conspicuous. 

It  was  while  this  contest  was  at  its  height  that  a  protest 
against  an  ecclesiastical  abuse,  made,  in  no  unusual  or  spec 
tacular  fashion,  by  a  monastic  professor  in  a  recently  founded 
and  relatively  inconspicuous  German  university,  on  October 
31,  1517,  found  immediate  response  and  launched  the  most 
gigantic  revolution  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Martin  Luther,  from  whom  this  protest  came,  is  one  of  the 
few  men  of  whom  it  may  be  said  that  the  history  of  the  world 
was  profoundly  altered  by  his  work.  Not  a  great  scholar,  an 
organizer  or  a  politician,  he  moved  men  by  the  power  of  a 
profound  religious  experience,  resulting  in  unshakable  trust  in 
God,  and  in  direct,  immediate  and  personal  relations  to  Him, 
which  brought  a  confident  salvation  that  left  no  room  for  the 
elaborate  hierarchical  and  sacramental  structures  of  the  Middle 
Ages.  He  spoke  to  his  countrymen  as  one  profoundly  of  them 


LUTHER'S  EARLY  LIFE  337 

in  aspirations  and  sympathies,  yet  above  them  by  virtue  of  a 
vivid  and  compelling  faith,  and  a  courage,  physical  and  spiritual, 
of  the  most  heroic  mould.  Yet  so  largely  was  he  of  his  race, 
in  his  virtues  and  limitations,  that  he  is  understood  with  diffi 
culty,  to  this  day,  by  a  Frenchman  or  an  Italian,  and  even 
Anglo-Saxons  have  seldom  appreciated  that  fulness  of  sym 
pathetic  admiration  with  which  a  German  Protestant  speaks 
his  name.  But  whether  honored  or  opposed,  none  can  deny 
his  pre-eminent  place  in  the  history  of  the  church. 

Luther  was  born  on  November  10,  1483,  in  Eisleben,  where 
his  father  was  a  peasant  miner.  His  father  and  mother  were 
of  simple,  unecclesiastical  piety.  The  father,  more  energetic 
and  ambitious  than  most  peasants,  removed  to  Mansfeld  a 
few  months  after  Martin's  birth,  where  he  won  respect  and  a 
modest  competence,  and  was  fired  with  ambition  to  give  his 
son  an  education  fitting  to  a  career  in  the  law.  After  prepara 
tory  schooling  in  Mansfeld,  Magdeburg,  and  Eisenach,  Martin 
Luther  entered  the  University  of  Erfurt  in  1501,  where  he  was 
known  as  an  earnest,  companionable,  and  music-loving  student. 
The  humanistic  movement  beginning  to  be  felt  in  Erfurt  had 
little  influence  upon  him.  His  interest  was  rather  in  the  later, 
nominalistic  scholastic  philosophy,  representative  of  the  school 
of  Occam,  though  he  read  fairly  widely  in  the  Latin  classics. 

Luther  felt  strongly  that  deep  sense  of  sinfulness  which  was 
the  ground  note  of  the  religious  revival  of  the  age  in  Germany. 
His  graduation  as  master  of  arts  in  1505,  made  it  necessary 
then  to  begin  his  special  preparation  in  law.  He  was  pro 
foundly  moved,  however,  by  the  sudden  death  of  a  friend  and 
by  a  narrow  escape  from  lightning,  and  he  therefore  broke  off 
his  career,  and,  in  deep  anxiety  for  his  soul's  salvation,  en 
tered  the  monastery  of  Augustinian  hermits  in  Erfurt,  in  July, 
1505.  The  "German  congregation"  of  Augustinians,  recently 
reformed  by  Andreas  Proles  (1429-1503),  and  now  under  the 
supervision  of  Johann  von  Staupitz  (?-1524),  enjoyed  deserved 
popular  respect  and  represented  mediaeval  monasticism  at  its 
best.  Thoroughly  mediaeval,  in  general,  in  its  theological  posi 
tion,  it  made  much  of  preaching,  and  included  some  men 
who  were  disposed  to  mystical  piety  and  sympathetic  with 
the  deeper  religious  apprehensions  of  Augustine  and  Bernard. 
To  Staupitz,  Luther  was  to  owe  much.  In  the  monastic  life 
Luther  won  speedy  recognition.  In  1507  he  was  ordained  to 


338       LUTHER'S  RELIGIOUS  DEVELOPMENT 

the  priesthood.  The  next  year  saw  him  in  Wittenberg,  at  the 
command  of  his  superiors,  preparing  for  a  future  professorship 
in  the  university  which  had  been  there  established  by  the 
Saxon  Elector,  Frederick  III,  "the  Wise"  (1486-1525),  in  1502. 
There  he  graduated  bachelor  of  theology  in  1509,  but  was  sent 
back  the  same  year  to  Erfurt,  possibly  to  study  for  the  degree 
of  sententiarius,  or  licensed  expounder  of  that  great  mediaeval 
text-book  of  theology,  the  "Sentences"  of  Peter  Lombard  (ante, 
p.  266).  On  business  of  his  order  he  made  a  memorable  journey 
to  Rome,  probably  in  1510.  Back  once  more  in  Wittenberg, 
which  was  thenceforth  to  be  his  home,  he  became  a  doctor  of 
theology  in  1512  and  began  at  once  to  lecture  on  the  Bible, 
treating  the  Psalms  from  1513  to  1515,  then  Romans  till  late 
in  1516,  and  thereupon  Galatians,  Hebrews,  and  Titus.  His 
practical  abilities  were  recognized  by  his  appointment,  in  1515, 
as  district  vicar  in  charge  of  eleven  monasteries  of  his  order,  and 
he  began,  even  earlier,  the  practice  of  preaching  in  which,  from 
the  first,  he  displayed  remarkable  gifts.  In  his  order  he  bore 
the  repute  of  a  man  of  singular  piety,  devotion,  and  monastic 
zeal. 

Yet,  in  spite  of  all  monastic  strenuousness,  Luther  found  no 
peace  of  soul.  His  sense  of  sinfulness  overwhelmed  him. 
Staupitz  helped  him  by  pointing  out  that  true  penitence  began 
not  with  fear  of  a  punishing  God,  but  with  love  to  God.  But 
if  Luther  could  say  that  Staupitz  first  opened  his  eyes  to  the 
Gospel,  the  clarifying  of  his  vision  was  a  slow  and  gradual  proc 
ess.  Till  1509  Luther  devoted  himself  to  the  later  scholastics, 
Occam,  d'Ailli,  and  Biel.  To  them  he  owed  permanently  his 
disposition  to  emphasize  the  objective  facts  of  revelation,  and 
his  distrust  of  reason.  Augustine,  however,  was  opening  new 
visions  to  him  by  the  close  of  1509,  and  leading  him  to  a  rapidly 
growing  hostility  toward  the  dominance  of  Aristotle  in  theology. 
Augustine's  mysticism  and  emphasis  on  the  salvatory  signifi 
cance  of  the  human  life  and  death  of  Christ  fascinated  him. 
Anselm  and  Bernard  helped  him.  By  the  time  that  Luther 
lectured  on  the  Psalms  (1513-1515),  he  had  become  convinced 
that  salvation  is  a  new  relation  to  God,  based  not  on  any  work 
of  merit  on  man's  part,  but  on  absolute  trust  in  the  divine 
promises,  so  that  the  redeemed  man,  while  not  ceasing  to  be 
a  sinner,  yet  is  freely  and  fully  forgiven,  and  from  the  new  and 
joyous  relationship  to  God  in  Christ,  the  new  life  of  willing 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  339 

conformity  to  God's  will  flows.  It  was  a  re-emphasis  of  a  most 
important  side* of  the  Pauline  teaching.  Yet  it  was  not  wholly 
Pauline.  To  Paul  the  Christian  is  primarily  a  renewed  moral 
being.  ;To  Luther  he  is  first  of  all  a  forgiven  sinner  ;  but  Luther, 
like  Paul,  made  salvation  in  essence  a  right  personal  relation 
ship  to  God.  The  ground  and  the  pledge  of  this  right  relation 
ship  is  the  mercy  of  God  displayed  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
in  man's  behalf.  Christ  has  borne  our  sins.  We,  in  turn, 
have  imputed  to  us  His  righteousness.  The  German  mystics, 
especially  Tauler,  now  helped  Luther  to  the  conclusion  that 
this  transforming  trust  was  not,  as  he  had  supposed,  a  work 
in  which  a  man  had  a  part,  but  wholly  the  gift  of  God.  The 
work  preparatory  to  his  lectures  on  Romans  (1515-1516)  but 
intensified  these  convictions.  He  now  declared  that  the  com 
mon  opinion  that  God  would  infallibly  infuse  grace  into  those 
who  did  what  was  in  their  power  was  absurd  and  Pelagian. 
The  basis  of  any  work-righteousness  had  been  overthrown  for 
Luther. 

While  thus  convinced  as  to  the  nature  and  method  of  sal 
vation,  Luther's  own  peace  of  soul  was  not  yet  secured.  He 
needed  the  further  conviction  of  certainty  of  his  own  personal 
justification.  That  certainty  he  had,  with  Augustine,  denied. 
Yet  as  he  labored  on  the  latter  part  of  his  lectures  on  Romans, 
and  even  more  clearly  in  the  closing  months  of  1516,  his  con 
fidence  that  the  God-given  nature  of  faith  involved  personal 
assurance  became  conviction.  Thenceforth,  in  his  own  per 
sonal  experience  the  sum  of  the  Gospel  was  the  forgiveness  of 
sins.  It  was  "good  news,"  filling  the  soul  with  peace,  joy,  and 
absolute  trust  in  God.  It  was  absolute  dependence  on  the  di 
vine  promises,  on  God's  "word." 

Luther  had  not,  thus  far,  consciously  worked  out  a  new 
system  of  theology.  He  had  had  a  deep,  vital  experience. 
It  was  an  experience,  however,  in  no  way  to  be  squared  with 
much  of  current  theories  of  salvation  in  which  acts,  penances, 
and  satisfactions  had  a  prominent  part.  No  theoretic  con 
siderations  made  Luther  a  reformer.  He  was  driven  by  the 
force  of  a  profound  inward  experience  to  test  the  beliefs  and 
institutions  which  he  saw  about  him.  The  profundity  and 
nobility  of  Luther's  experience  cannot  be  doubted.  Yet  its 
applicability  as  a  universal  test  may  be  questioned.  To  him 
faith  was  a  vital,  transforming  power,  a  new  and  vivifying  per- 


340  THE  NINETY-FIVE  THESES 

sonal  relationship.  Many  men,  however,  while  sincerely  de 
sirous  of  serving  God  and  their  generation,  have  no  such  sense 
of  personal  forgiveness,  no  such  soul-stirring  depth  of  feeling, 
no  such  childlike  trust.  They  desire,  with  God's  aid,  to  do 
the  best  they  can.  For  them  "justification  by  faith  alone"  is 
either  well-nigh  meaningless,  or  becomes  an  intellectual  assent 
to  religious  truth.  To  enter  into  the  experience  of  Luther  or 
of  Paul  is  by  no  means  possible  for  all. 

By  1516  Luther  did  not  stand  alone.  In  the  University  of 
Wittenberg  his  opposition  to  Aristotelianism  and  Scholasticism 
and  his  Biblical  theology  found  much  sympathy.  His  col 
leagues,  Andreas  Bodenstein  of  Karlstadt  (1480?-1541),  who, 
unlike  Luther,  had  represented  the  older  Scholasticism  of 
Aquinas,  and  Nikolaus  von  Amsdorf  (1483-1565),  now  became 
his  hearty  supporters. 

In  1517  Luther  had  an  opportunity  to  apply  his  new  con 
ception  of  salvation  to  a  crying  abuse.  Pope  Leo  X  had  de 
cided  in  favor  of  the  claims  of  Albrecht  of  Brandenburg  to  hold 
at  the  same  time  the  archbishopric  of  Mainz,  the  archbishopric 
of  Magdeburg,  and  the  administration  of  the  bishopric  of  Hal- 
berstadt,  an  argument  moving  thereto  being  a  large  financial 
payment.  To  indemnify  himself,  Albrecht  secured  as  his  share 
half  the  proceeds  in  his  district  of  the  indulgences  that  the 
papacy  had  been  issuing,  since  1506,  for  building  that  new 
church  of  St.  Peter  which  is  still  one  of  the  ornaments  of  Rome. 
A  commissioner  for  this  collection  was  Johann  Tetzel  (1470- 
1519),  a  Dominican  monk  of  eloquence,  who,  intent  on  the 
largest  possible  returns,  painted  the  benefits  of  indulgences 
in  the  crassest  terms.1  To  Luther,  convinced  that  only  a 
right  personal  relation  with  God  would  bring  salvation,  such 
teaching  seemed  destructive  of  real  religion.  As  Tetzel  ap 
proached — he  was  not  allowed  to  enter  electoral  Saxony- 
Luther  preached  against  the  abuse  of  indulgences  and,  on 
October  31,  1517,  posted  on  the  door  of  the  castle  church,  in 
Wittenberg,  which  served  as  the  university  bulletin  board,  his 
ever  memorable  Ninety-five  Theses.2 

Viewed  in  themselves,  it  may  well  be  wondered  why  the 

1  See  extracts  in  Kidd,  Documents  Illustrative  of  the  Continental  Reforma 
tion,  pp.  12-20. 

2  Kidd,  pp.  21-26 ;  English  tr.,  Wace  and  Buchheim,  Luther's  Primary 
Works,  pp.  6-14.  ^ 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WIDENS  341 

Ninety-five  Theses  proved  the  spark  which  kindled  the  ex 
plosion.  They  were  intended  for  academic  debate.  They  do 
not  deny  the  right  of  the  Pope  to  grant  indulgences.  They 
question  the  extension  of  indulgences  to  purgatory,  and  make 
evident  the  abuses  of  current  teaching — abuses  which  they 
imply  the  Pope  will  repudiate  when  informed.  Yet  though 
they  are  far  from  expressing  the  full  round  of  Luther's  thought, 
certain  principles  are  evident  in  them  which,  if  developed, 
would  be  revolutionary  of  the  churchly  practice  of  the  day. 
Repentance  is  not  an  act,  but  a  life-long  habit  of  mind.  The 
true  treasury  of  the  church  is  God's  forgiving  grace.  The 
Christian  seeks  rather  than  avoids  divine  discipline.  "Every 
Christian  who  feels  true  compunction  has  of  right  plenary  re 
mission  of  pain  and  guilt,  even  without  letters  of  pardon."  In 
the  restless  condition  of  Germany  it  was  an  event  of  the  utmost 
significance  that  a  respected,  if  humble,  religious  leader  had 
spoken  boldly  against  a  great  abuse,  and  the  Theses  ran  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  empire. 

Luther  had  not  anticipated  the  excitement.  Tetzel  answered 
at  once,1  and  stirred  Konrad  Wimpina  (?-1531)  to  make 
reply.  A  more  formidable  opponent  was  the  able  and  disputa 
tious  Johann  Maier  of  Eck  (1486-1543),  professor  of  theology  in 
the  University  of  Ingolstadt,  who  answered  with  a  tract  circu 
lated  in  manuscript  and  entitled  Obelwci.  Luther  was  charged 
with  heresy.  He  defended  his  position  in  a  sermon  on  "In 
dulgence  and  Grace"  ;2  he  replied  to  Eck.  By  the  beginning 
of  1518,  complaints  against  Luther  had  been  lodged  in  Rome 
by  Archbishop  Albrecht  of  Mainz  and  the  Dominicans.  The 
result  was  that  the  general  of  the  Augustinians  was  ordered 
to  end  the  dispute  and  Luther  was  summoned  before  the 
general  chapter  of  the  order  met  in  Heidelberg,  in  April.  There 
Luther  argued  against  free  will  and  the  control  of  Aristotle  in 
theology  and  won  new  adherents,  of  whom  one  of  the  most 
important  was  Martin  Butzer  (Bucer).  At  about  the  same 
time  Luther  put  forth  a  more  elaborate  defense  of  his  position 
on  indulgences,  the  Resolutiones. 

Luther  had  desired  no  quarrel  with  the  papacy.  He  seems 
to  have  believed  that  the  Pope  might  see  the  abuses  of  indul 
gences  as  he  did,  but  the  course  of  events  was  leading  to  no 
choice  save  the  sturdy  maintenance  of  his  views  or  submission. 

*  Kidd,  pp.  30,  31.  2  Ibid.,  p.  29. 


342  LUTHER  AND  CAJETANUS 

In  June,  1518,  Pope  Leo  X  issued  a  citation  to  Luther  to  appear 
in  Rome,  and  commissioned  his  censor  of  books,  the  Domini 
can  Silvestro  Mazzolini  of  Prierio,  to  draw  up  an  opinion  on 
Luther's  position.  The  summons  and  the  opinion  reached 
Luther  early  in  August.  Prierio  asserted  that  "the  Roman 
Church  is  representatively  the  college  of  cardinals,  and  more 
over  is  virtually  the  supreme  pontiff,"  and  that  "He  who  says 
that  the  Roman  Church  cannot  do  what  it  actually  does  regard 
ing  indulgences  is  a  heretic."  1  Luther's  case  would  apparently 
have  speedily  ended  in  his  condemnation  had  he  not  had  the 
powerful  protection  of  his  prince,  the  Elector  Frederick,  "the 
Wise."  In  how  far  Frederick  sympathized  with  Luther's  relig 
ious  beliefs  at  any  time  is  a  matter  of  controversy;  but,  at  all 
events  he  was  proud  of  his  Wittenberg  professor,  and  averse  to 
an  almost  certain  condemnation  in  Rome.  His  political  skill 
effected  a  change  of  hearing  from  the  Roman  court  to  the  papal 
legate  at  the  Reichstag  in  Augsburg,  the  learned  commentator 
on  Aquinas,  Cardinal  Thomas  Vio  (1469-1534),  known  from  his 
birthplace  (Gaeta)  as  Cajetanus.  Cajetanus  was  a  theologian 
of  European  repute  and  seems  to  have  thought  the  matter 
rather  beneath  his  dignity.  He  ordered  Luther  to  retract, 
especially  criticisms  of  the  completeness  of  papal  power  of  in 
dulgence.  Luther  refused,2  and,  on  October  20,  fled  from  Augs 
burg,  having  appealed  to  the  Pope  "to  be  better  informed."3 
Not  satisfied  with  this,  Luther  appealed  from  Wittenberg,  in 
November,  1518,  to  a  future  general  council.4  How  little 
chance  of  a  favorable  hearing  he  had  in  Rome  is  shown  by  the 
bull  issued  the  same  month  by  Leo  X  defining  indulgences  in 
the  sense  which  Luther  had  criticised.5  Luther  had  no  real 
hope  of  safety.  If  his  courage  was  great,  his  danger  was  no 
less  so;  but  he  was  rescued  from  immediate  condemnation  by 
the  favorable  turn  of  political  events. 

Meanwhile  the  summer  of  1518  had  seen  the  installation  as 
professor  of  Greek  in  Wittenberg  of  a  young  scholar,  a  native 
of  Bretten  and  grandnephew  of  Reuchlin,  Philip  Melanchthon 
(1497-1560),  who  was  to  be  singularly  united  with  Luther  in 
their  after  work.  Never  was  there  a  greater  contrast.  Me 
lanchthon  was  timid  and  retiring;  but  he  was  without  a  superior 
in  scholarship,  and  under  the  strong  impress  of  Luther's  per- 

1  Kidd,  pp.  31,  32.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  33-37.  3  Ibid.,  pp.  37-39. 

«  Ibid.,  p.  40.  6  Ibid.,  p.  39. 


THE  LEIPZIG  DEBATE  343 

sonality,  he  devoted  his  remarkable  abilities,  almost  from  his 
arrival  in  Wittenberg,  to  the  furtherance  of  the  Lutheran  cause. 

The  Emperor,  Maximilian,  was  now  visibly  nearing  the  end 
of  his  life,  which  was  to  come  in  January,  1519,  and  the 
turmoil  of  a  disputed  election  was  impending.  Pope  Leo  X, 
as  an  Italian  prince,  looked  with  disfavor  on  the  candidacy 
of  Charles  of  Spain,  or  Francis  of  France,  as  increasing  foreign 
influence  in  Italy,  and  sought  the  good-will  of  the  Elector  Fred 
erick,  whom  he  would  gladly  have  seen  chosen.  It  was  no 
time  to  proceed  against  Frederick's  favored  professor.  Leo, 
therefore,  sent  his  chamberlain,  the  Saxon  Karl  von  Miltitz,  as 
his  nuncio,  with  a  golden  rose,  a  present  expressive  of  high  papal 
favor,  to  the  Elector.  Miltitz  flattered  himself  that  he  could 
heal  the  ecclesiastical  quarrel  and  went  far  beyond  his  instruc 
tions.  On  his  own  motion  he  disowned  Tetzel,  and  held  an 
interview  with  Luther,  whom  he  persuaded  to  agree  to  keep 
silent  on  the  questions  in  dispute,  to  submit  the  case,  if  possible, 
to  learned  German  bishops,  and  to  write  a  humble  letter  to  the 
Pope.1 

Any  real  agreement  was  impossible.  Luther's  Wittenberg 
colleague,  Andreas  Bodenstein  of  Karlstadt  (14SO?-1541),  had 
argued  in  1518,  in  opposition  to  Eck,  that  the  text  of  the  Bible 
is  to  be  preferred  even  to  the  authority  of  the  whole  church. 
Eck  demanded  a  public  debate,  to  which  Karlstadt  agreed,  and 
Luther  soon  found  himself  drawn  into  the  combat,  proposing 
to  contend  that  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  Church  is  unsup 
ported  by  history  or  Scripture.  In  June  and  July,  1519,  the 
great  debate  was  held  in  Leipzig.  Karlstadt,  who  was  an  un 
ready  disputant,  succeeded  but  moderately  in  holding  his  own 
against  the  nimble-witted  Eck.  Luther's  earnestness  acquitted 
itself  much  better;  but  Eck's  skill  drove  Luther  to  the  admis 
sion  that  his  positions  wrere  in  some  respects  those  of  Huss,  and 
that  in  condemning  Huss  the  revered  Council  of  Constance 
had  erred.  To  Eck  this  seemed  a  forensic  triumph,  and  he 
believed  victory  to  be  his,  declaring  that  one  who  could  deny 
the  infallibility  of  a  general  council  was  a  heathen  and  a  publi 
can.2  It  was,  indeed,  a  momentous  declaration  into  which 
Luther  had  been  led.  He  had  already  rejected  the  final  author 
ity  of  the  Pope,  he  now  admitted  the  fallibility  of  councils. 
Those  steps  implied  a  break  with  the  whole  authoritative 

1  Kidd,  pp.  41-44.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  44-51. 


344  LUTHER'S  GREAT  TREATISES 

system  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  allowed  final  appeal  only  to 
the  Scriptures,  and  to  the  Scriptures,  moreover,  interpreted 
by  the  individual  judgment.  Eck  felt  that  the  whole  con 
troversy  might  now  be  speedily  ended  by  a  papal  bull  of  con 
demnation,  which  he  now  set  himself  to  secure  and  which  was 
issued  on  June  15,  1520.1 

Luther  was  now,  indeed,  in  the  thick  of  the  battle.  His  own 
ideas  were  rapidly  crystallizing.  Humanistic  supporters,  like 
Ulrich  von  Hutten,  were  now  rallying  to  him  as  one  who  could 
lead  in  a  national  conflict  with  Rome.  Luther  himself  was  be 
ginning  to  see  his  task  as  a  national  redemption  of  Germany 
from  a  papacy  which,  rather  than  the  individual  Pope,  he  was 
coming  to  regard  as  antichrist.  His  doctrine  of  salvation  was 
bearing  larger  fruitage.  In  his  little  tract,  On  Good  Works, 
of  May,  1520,  after  defining  "the  noblest  of  all  good  works"  to 
be  "to  believe  in  Christ,"  he  affirmed  the  essential  goodness 
of  the  normal  trades  and  occupations  of  life,  and  denounced 
those  who  "limit  good  works  so  narrowly  that  they  must  con 
sist  in  praying  in  church,  fasting  or  giving  alms."2  This  vin 
dication  of  the  natural  human  life  as  the  best  field  for  the  ser 
vice  of  God,  rather  than  the  unnatural  limitations  of  asceticism, 
was  to  be  one  of  Luther's  most  important  contributions  to 
Protestant  thought,  as  well  as  one  of  his  most  significant  de 
partures  from  ancient  and  mediaeval  Christian  conceptions. 

Luther's  great  accomplishment  of  the  year  1520  and  his 
completion  of  his  title  to  leadership  were  the  preparation  of 
three  epoch-making  works.  The  first  of  these  treatises  was 
published  in  August,  entitled  To  the  Christian  Nobility  of  the  Ger 
man  Nation.3  Written  with  burning  conviction,  by  a  master 
of  the  German  tongue,  it  soon  ran  the  breadth  of  the  empire. 
It  declared  that  three  Roman  walls  were  overthrown  by  which 
the  papacy  had  buttressed  its  power.  The  pretended  superi 
ority  of  the  spiritual  to  the  temporal  estate  is  baseless,  since 
all  believers  are  priests.  That  truth  of  universal  priesthood 
casts  down  the  second  wall,  that  of  exclusive  papal  right  to 
interpret  the  Scriptures;  and  the  third  wall,  also,  that  a  re 
formatory  council  can  be  called  by  none  but  the  Pope.  "A 
true,  free  council"  for  the  reform  of  the  church  should  be  sum- 

1  Kidd,  pp.  74-79.  2  Robinson,  Readings,  2 :  66-68. 

3  Translated  in  full  in  Wace  and  Buchheim's,  Luther's  Primary  Works, 
pp.  17-92. 


LUTHER'S  GREAT  TREATISES  345 

moned  by  thp  temporal  authorities.  Luther  then  proceeded 
to  lay  down  a  programme  for  reformatory  action,  his  sugges 
tions  being  practical  rather  than  theological.  Papal  mis- 
government,  appointments,  and  taxation  are  to  be  curbed; 
burdensome  offices  abolished ;  German  ecclesiastical  interests 
should  be  placed  under  a  "Primate  of  Germany"  ;  clerical  mar 
riage  permitted ;  the  far  too  numerous  holy  days  reduced  in 
the  interest  of  industry  and  sobriety;  beggary,  including  that 
of  the  mendicant  orders,  forbidden ;  brothels  closed ;  luxury 
curbed;  and  theological  education  in  the  universities  reformed. 
No  wonder  the  effect  of  Luther's  work  was  profound.  He  had 
voiced  what  earnest  men  had  long  been  thinking. 

Two  months  later  Luther  put  forth  in  Latin  his  Babylonish 
Captivity  of  the  Church,1  in  which  questions  of  the  highest  theo 
logical  import  were  handled  and  the  teaching  of  the  Roman 
Church  unsparingly  attacked.  The  sole  value  of  a  sacrament, 
Luther  taught,  is  its  witness  to  the  divine  promise.  It  seals  or 
attests  the  God-given  pledge  of  union  with  Christ  and  forgive 
ness  of  sins.  It  strengthens  faith.  Tried  by  the  Scripture 
standard,  there  are  only  two  sacraments,  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper,  though  penance  has  a  certain  sacramental  value 
as  a  return  to  baptism.  Monastic  vows,  pilgrimages,  works  of 
merit,  are  a  man-made  substitute  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
freely  promised  to  faith  in  baptism.  Luther  criticised  the  denial 
of  the  cup  to  the  laity,  doubted  transubstantiation,  for  which 
he  would  substitute  a  theory  of  consubstantiation  derived  from 
d'Ailli,  and  especially  rejected  the  doctrine  that  the  Supper  is 
a  sacrifice  to  God.  The  other  Roman  sacraments,  confirma 
tion,  matrimony,  orders,  and  extreme  unction,  have  no  sacra 
mental  standing  in  Scripture. 

It  is  one  of  the  marvels  of  Luther's  stormy  career  that  he  was 
able  to  compose  and  issue,  contemporaneously  with  these 
intensely  polemic  treatises,  and  while  the  papal  bull  was  being 
published  in  Germany,  his  third  great  tractate  of  1520,  that  On 
Christian  Liberty.2  In  calm  confidence  he  presented  the  para 
dox  of  Christian  experience:  "A  Christian  man  is  the  most 
free  lord  of  all,  and  subject  to  none;  a  Christian  man  is  the 
most  dutiful  servant  of  all,  and  subject  to  every  one."  He  is 
free,  since  justified  by  faith,  no  longer  under  the  law  of  works 

1  Luther's  Primary  Works,  pp.  141-245. 

2  Ibid.,,  pp.  95-137. 


346          LUTHER  BURNS  THE  PAPAL  BULL 

and  in  new  personal  relationship  with  Christ.  He  is  a  servant 
because  bound  by  love  to  bring  his  life  into  conformity  to  the 
will  of  God  and  to  be  helpful  to  his  neighbor.  In  this  tract, 
in  an  elsewhere  unmatched  measure,  the  power  and  the  limita 
tions  of  Lutheranism  are  evident.  To  Luther  the  essence  of 
the  Gospel  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  wrought  through  a  faith, 
which,  as  with  Paul,  is  nothing  less  than  a  vital,  personal  trans 
forming  relationship  of  the  soul  with  Christ.  It  is  unquestion 
ably  the  highest  of  Christian  experiences.  Its  limitation,  as 
already  pointed  out,  is  that  this  experience,  if  regarded  as  the 
sole  type  of  true  religion,  is  one  beyond  the  practical  attain 
ment  of  many  earnest  men.  To  this  tract  Luther  prefaced  a 
letter  to  Pope  Leo  X,  which  is  a  most  curious  document,  breath 
ing  good-will  to  the  Pontiff  personally,  but  full  of  denunciation 
of  the  papal  court  and  its  claims  for  the  papacy,  in  which  the 
Pope  is  represented  as  "sitting  like  a  lamb  in  the  midst  of 
wolves."  Though  Luther's  vision  was  to  clarify  hereafter 
regarding  many  details,  his  theological  system  was  thus  prac 
tically  complete  in  its  main  outlines  by  1520. 

Meanwhile  Eck  and  Girolamo  Aleander  (1480-1542)  had 
come  with  the  papal  bull,  as  nuncios,  to  Germany.  In  Witten 
berg  its  publication  was  refused,  and  its  reception  in  large  parts 
of  Germany  was  lukewarm  or  hostile,  but  Aleander  secured  its 
publication  in  the  Netherlands,  and  procured  the  burning  of 
Luther's  books  in  Louvain,  Liege,  Antwerp,  and  Cologne.  On 
December  10,  1520,  Luther  answered  by  burning  the  papal 
bull  and  the  canon  law,  with  the  approving  presence  of  students 
and  citizens  of  Wittenberg,  and  without  opposition  from  the 
civil  authorities.  It  was  evident  that  a  considerable  section  of 
Germany  was  in  ecclesiastical  rebellion,  and  the  situation  de- 
manaded  the  cognizance  of  the  highest  authorities  of  the 
empire. 

On  June  28,  1519,  while  the  Leipzig  disputation  was  in  prog 
ress,  the  imperial  election  had  resulted  in  the  choice  of  Maxi 
milian's  grandson  Charles  V  (1500-1558).  Heir  of  Spain,  the 
Netherlands,  the  Austrian  territories  of  the  house  of  Habs- 
burg,  master  of  a  considerable  portion  of  Italy,  and  of  newly 
discovered  territories  across  the  Atlantic,  his  election  as  Holy 
Roman  Emperor  made  him  the  head  of  a  territory  vaster  than 
that  of  any  single  ruler  since  Charlemagne.  It  was  an  author 
ity  greatly  limited,  however,  in  Germany  by  the  territorial 


LUTHER  AT  WORMS  347 

powers  of  the  local  princes.  As  yet  Charles  was  young  and 
unknown,  and  both  sides  in  the  religious  struggles  of  the  day 
had  strong  hope  of  his  support.  In  reality  he  was  an  earnest 
Roman  "Catholic,  of  the  type  of  his  grandmother,  Isabella  of 
Castile,  sharing  her  reformatory  views,  desirous  of  improve 
ment  in  clerical  morals,  education,  and  administration,  but 
wholly  unsympathetic  with  any  departure  from  the  doctrinal  or 
hierarchical  system  of  the  Middle  Ages.  He  had  at  last  come 
to  Germany,  and  partly  to  regulate  his  government  in  that 
land,  partly  to  prepare  for  the  war  about  to  break  out  over  the 
rival  claims  of  France  and  Spain  in  Italy,  had  called  a  Reichs 
tag  to  meet  in  Worms  in  November,  1520.  Though  there  was 
much  other  business,  all  felt  the  determination  of  Luther's  case 
of  high  importance.  The  papal  nuncio,  Aleander,  pressed  for 
a  prompt  condemnation,  especially  after  the  final  papal  bull 
against  Luther  was  issued  on  January  2,  1521.  Since  Luther 
was  already  condemned  by  the  Pope,  the  Reichstag  had  no 
duty,  Aleander  urged,  but  to  make  that  condemnation  effective. 
On  the  other  hand,  Luther  had  wide  popular  support,  and  his 
ruler,  the  Elector  Frederick  the  Wise,  a  master  of  diplomatic  in 
trigue,  was,  fortunately  for  Luther,  of  the  opinion  that  the  con 
demned  monk  had  never  had  an  adequate  trial.  Frederick,  and 
other  nobles,  believed  that  he  should  be  heard  before  the  Reichs 
tag  previous  to  action  by  that  body.  Between  the  two  coun 
sels  the  Emperor  wavered,  convinced  that  Luther  was  a  damna 
ble  heretic,  but  politician  enough  not  to  oppose  German  senti 
ment  too  sharply,  or  to  throw  away  the  possible  advantage  of 
making  the  heretic's  fate  a  lever  in  bringing  the  Pope  to  the 
imperial  side  in  the  struggle  with  France. 

The  result  was  that  Luther  was  summoned  to  Worms  un 
der  the  protection  of  an  imperial  safe-conduct.  His  journey 
thither  from  Wittenberg  was  well-nigh  a  popular  ovation.  On 
April  17, 1521,  Luther  appeared  before  the  Emperor  and  Reichs 
tag.  A  row  of  his  books  was  pointed  out  to  him  and  he  was 
asked  whether  he  would  recant  them  or  not.  Luther  requested 
time  for  reflection.  A  day  was  given  him,  and  on  the  next 
afternoon  he  was  once  more  before  the  assembly.  Here  he 
acknowledged  that,  in  the  heat  of  controversy,  he  had  expressed 
himself  too  strongly  against  persons,  but  the  substance  of 
what  he  had  written  he  could  not  retract,  unless  convinced  of 
its  wrongfulness  by  Scripture  or  adequate  argument.  The 


348  LUTHER  AT  WORMS 

Emperor,  who  could  hardly  believe  that  such  temerity  as  to 
deny  the  infallibility  of  a  general  council  was  possible,  cut  the 
discussion  short.  That  Luther  cried  out,  "I  cannot  do  other 
wise.  Here  I  stand.  God  help  me,  Amen,"  is  not  certain, 
but  seems  not  improbable.  The  words  at  least  expressed  the 
substance  of  his  unshaken  determination.  He  had  borne  a 
great  historic  witness  to  the  truth  of  his  convictions  before  the 
highest  tribunal  of  his  nation.  Of  his  dauntless  courage  he 
had  given  the  completest  proof.  The  judgment  of  his  hearers 
was  divided,  but  if  he  alienated  the  Emperor  and  the  prelates 
by  his  strong  and,  as  it  seemed  to  them,  self-willed  assertion, 
he  made  a  favorable  impression  on  many  of  the  German  no 
bility  and,  fortunately,  on  the  Elector  Frederick.  That  prince, 
though  he  thought  Luther  too  bold,  was  confirmed  in  his  de 
termination  that  no  harm  should  come  to  the  reformer.  Yet 
the  result  seemed  a  defeat  for  Luther.  A  month  after  Luther 
had  started  on  his  homeward  journey  he  was  formally  put  under 
the  ban  of  the  empire,  though  not  till  after  many  of  the  mem 
bers  of  the  Reichstag  had  left.  He  was  to  be  seized  for  pun 
ishment  and  his  books  burned.1  This  ban  was  never  formally 
abrogated,  and  Luther  remained  the  rest  of  his  life  under  im 
perial  condemnation. 

Had  Germany  been  controlled  by  a  strong  central  authority 
Luther's  career  would  soon  have  ended  in  martyrdom.  Not 
even  an  imperial  edict,  however,  could  be  executed  against  the 
will  of  a  vigorous  territorial  ruler,  and  Frederick  the  Wise 
proved  once  more  Luther's  salvation.  Unwilling  to  come  out 
openly  as  his  defender,  perhaps  somewhat  afraid  to  do  so,  he 
had  Luther  seized  by  friendly  hands,  as  the  reformer  journeyed 
homeward  from  Worms,  and  carried  secretly  to  the  Wartburg 
Castle,  near  Eisenach.  For  months  Luther's  hiding-place  was 
practically  unknown;  but  that  he  lived  and  shared  in  the  for 
tunes  of  the  struggle  his  ready  pen  made  speedily  apparent. 
His  attacks  on  the  Roman  practice  grew  more  intense,  but  the 
most  lasting  fruit  of  this  period  of  enforced  retirement  was  his 
translation  of  the  New  Testament,  begun  in  December,  1521, 
and  published  in  September  of  the  following  year.  Luther 
was  by  no  means  the  first  to  translate  the  Scriptures  into  Ger 
man,  but  the  earlier  versions  had  been  made  from  the  Vulgate, 
and  were  hard  and  awkward  in  expression.  Luther's  work 
1  Kidd,  Documents,  pp.  79-89. 


LUTHER  TRANSLATES  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT     349 

was  not  mereljj  from  the  Greek,  for  which  the  labors  of  Eras 
mus  gave  the  basis,  it  was  idiomatic  and  readable.  It  largely 
determined  the  form  of  speech  that  should  mark  future  German 
literature — that  of  the  Saxon  chancery  of  the  time — wrought 
and  polished  by  a  master  of  popular  expression.  Eew  services 
greater  than  this  translation  have  ever  been  rendered  to  the 
development  of  the  religious  life  of  a  nation.  Nor,  with  all 
his  deference  to  the  Word  of  God,  was  Luther  without  his  own 
canons  of  criticism.  These  were  the  relative  clearness  with 
which  his  interpretation  of  the  work  of  Christ  and  the  method 
of  salvation  by  faith  is  taught.  Judged  by  these  standards,  he 
felt  that  Hebrews,  James,  Jude,  and  Revelation  were  of  inferior 
worth.  Even  in  Scripture  itself  there  were  differences  in  value. 
The  month  which  saw  the  beginning  of  Luther's  work  as  a 
translator — December,  1521 — witnessed  the  publication  in 
Wittenberg  of  a  small  volume  by  Melanchthon,  the  Loci  Com 
munes,  meaning  Cardinal  Points  of  Theology.  With  it  the 
systematic  presentation  of  Lutheran  theology  may  be  said  to 
have  begun.1  It  was  to  be  enlarged,  developed,  arid  modified 
in  many  later  editions. 

SECTION   II.      SEPARATIONS  AND   DIVISIONS 

Luther's  sojourn  in  the  Wartburg  left  Wittenberg  without  his 
powerful  leadership;  but  there  were  not  wanting  many  there 
to  continue  the  ecclesiastical  revolution.  To  his  earlier  asso 
ciates  in  the  university,  Karlstadt,  Melanchthon,  and  Nikolaus 
von  Amsdorf  (1483-1565),  there  had  been  added,  in  the  first 
half  of  the  year  1521,  Johann  Bugenhagen  (1485-1558)  and 
Justus  Jonas  (1493-1555).  Of  these,  Karlstadt  had  unques 
tionably  greatest  natural  leadership,  but  was  rash,  impulsive, 
and  radical.  Luther  had  as  yet  made  no  changes  in  public 
worship  or  in  monastic  life.  Yet  it  was  inevitable  that  demand 
for  such  changes  should  come.  Luther's  fiery  fellow  monk, 
Gabriel  Zwilling  (1487?-! 558),  by  October,  1521,  was  de 
nouncing  the  mass  and  urging  the  abandonment  of  clerical  vows. 
He  soon  had  a  large  following,  especially  in  the  Augustinian 
monastery  of  Wittenberg,  many  of  the  inmates  of  which  now 
renounced  their  profession.  With  equal  zeal  Zwilling  was  soon 
attacking  images.  At  Christmas,  1521,  Karlstadt  celebrated 

1  Extracts  in  Kidd,  Documents,  pp.  90-94. 


350    RADICALISM.    LUTHER'S  CONSERVATISM 

the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  castle  church,  without  priestly  garb, 
sacrificial  offering,  elevation  of  the  host,  and  with  the  cup 
offered  to  the  laity.  Auricular  confession  and  fasts  were  aban 
doned.  Karlstadt  taught  that  all  ministers  should  marry,  and, 
in  January,  1522,  took  to  himself  a  wife.  He  was  soon  oppos 
ing  the  use  of  pictures,  organs,  and  the  Gregorian  chanting  in 
public  worship.  Under  his  leadership  the  Wittenberg  city 
government  broke  up  the  ancient  religious  fraternities  and 
confiscated  their  property,  decreed  that  the  services  should  be 
in  German,  condemned  pictures  in  the  churches,  and  forbad 
beggary,  ordering  that  really  needy  cases  be  aided  from  the 
city  treasury.  The  public  commotion  was  augmented  by  the 
arrival,  on  December  27,  1521,  of  three  radical  preachers  from 
Zwickau,  chief  of  whom  were  Nikolaus  Storch  and  Markus 
Thoma  Stiibner.  These  men  claimed  immediate  divine  in 
spiration,  opposed  infant  baptism,  and  prophesied  the  speedy 
end  of  the  world.  Melanchthon  was  somewhat  shaken  by 
them  at  first,  though  their  influence  in  general  has  been  exag 
gerated.  They  undoubtedly  added  something  to  a  state  of 
turmoil.1 

These  rapid  changes,  followed  by  a  popular  attack  on  images, 
were  highly  displeasing  to  Elector  Frederick  the  Wise,  and  they 
drew  forth  the  warning  protests  of  German  princes  and  the  im 
perial  authorities.  Though  Luther  was  to  further,  within  the 
next  three  or  four  years,  most  of  the  changes  which  Karlstadt 
and  Zwilling  had  made,  he  now  felt  that  his  cause  was  in  peril 
through  a  dangerous  radicalism.  The  city  government  ap 
pealed  to  Luther  to  return.  The  Elector  nominally  forbad 
him,  out  of  political  considerations,  but  on  March  6,  1522, 
Luther  was  once  more  in  Wittenberg,  which  thenceforth  was 
to  be  his  home.  Eight  days  of  preaching  showed  his  power. 
The  Gospel,  he  declared,  consisted  in  the  knowledge  of  sin,  in 
forgiveness  through  Christ,  and  in  love  to  one's  neighbor. 
The  alterations,  which  had  raised  the  turmoil,  had  to  do  with 
externals.  They  should  be  effected  only  in  a  spirit  of  consid 
eration  of  the  weak.  Luther  was  master  of  the  situation. 
Karlstadt  lost  all  influence  and  had  to  leave  the  city.  Many 
of  the  changes  were,  for  the  moment,  undone,  and  the  old 
order  of  worship  largely  re-established.  Luther  thus  showed 
a  decidedly  conservative  attitude.  He  opposed  not  merely 
1  Kidd,  pp.  94-104. 


Longitude    15°    West  from     10°     Greenwich  5° 


5°  Lo-ngitudt 


EUROPE   / 

during  the  Reformation. 


j£ 


100  aoo 


.KILOMETERS 

aoo          sop        «oo 


*       T 


II 


(tor 


Edit 


**   rt 


I.M  li.i.i. 


Metz 


•^   oBern 


°app<? 


l'^ 


40 


1512 


Cor 


Sardinia) 


Majorca 


SPREAD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  351 

the  Romanists,  fas  heretofore,  but  those  of  the  revolution  who 
would  move,  as  he  believed,  too  rapidly.  The  separations  in 
the  reform  party  itself  had  begun.  Yet  there  can  be  no  doubt 
as  to  Luther's  wisdom.  His  action  caused  many  of  the  German 
rulers  to  look  upon  him  with  kindliness,  as  one  who,  though 
condemned  at  Worms,  was  really  a  force  for  order  in  troublous 
times,  and  continued  especially  that  favor  of  his  Elector  with 
out  which  his  cause  would  even  now  have  made  speedy  ship 
wreck. 

Meanwhile  the  Emperor's  hands  were  tied  by  the  great  war 
with  France  for  the  control  of  Italy,  which  was  to  keep  him 
absent  from  Germany  from  1522  to  1530.  Effective  interfer 
ence  on  his  part  with  the  Reformation  was  impossible.  Pope 
Leo  X  had  closed  his  splendor-loving  reign  in  December,  1521, 
and  had  been  succeeded  by  Charles  V's  old  Netherlandish 
tutor  as  Adrian  VI — a  man  of  strict  mediaeval  orthodoxy,  but 
fully  conscious  of  the  need  of  moral  and  administrative  reform 
in  the  papal  court,  whose  brief  papacy  of  twenty  months  was 
to  be  a  painfully  fruitless  effort  to  check  the  evils  for  which 
he  believed  Luther's  heretical  movement  to  be  a  divine  pun 
ishment.  Sympathy  with  Luther  was  rapidly  spreading,  not 
merely  throughout  Saxony,  but  in  the  cities  of  Germany.  To 
the  Reichstag,  which  met  in  Nuremberg  in  November,  1522, 
Adrian  now  sent,  demanding  the  enforcement  of  the  edict  of 
Worms  against  Luther,  while  admitting  that  much  was  amiss 
in  ecclesiastical  administration.  The  Reichstag  replied  by  de 
claring  the  edict  impossible  of  enforcement,  and  by  demand 
ing  a  council  for  churchly  reform,  to  meet  within  a  year  in 
Germany,  while,  pending  its  assembly,  only  the  "true,  pure, 
genuine,  holy  Gospel"  was  to  be  preached.  The  old  complaints 
against  papal  misgovernment  were  renewed  by  the  Reichstag. 
Though  not  in  form,  it  was  in  reality  a  victory  for  Luther  and 
his  cause.  It  looked  as  if  the  Reformation  might  gain  the  sup 
port  of  the  whole  German  nation.1 

Under  these  favorable  circumstances  Evangelical  congrega 
tions  were  rapidly  forming  in  many  regions  of  Germany,  as  yet 
without  any  fixed  constitution  or  order  of  service.  Luther  now 
was  convinced  that  such  associations  of  believers  had  full 
power  to  appoint  and  depose  their  pastors.  He  held,  also, 
however,  that  the  temporal  rulers,  as  in  the  positions  of  chief 

1  Kidd,  pp.  105-121. 


352  CHANGES  IN  PUBLIC   WORSHIP 

power  and  responsibility  in  the  Christian  community,  had  a 
prime  duty  to  further  the  Gospel.  The  experiences  of  the 
immediate  future,  and  the  necessities  of  actual  church  organ 
ization  within  extensive  territories,  were  to  turn  Luther  from 
whatever  sympathy  he  now  had  with  this  free-churchism  to  a 
strict  dependence  on  the  state.  To  meet  the  demands  of  the 
new  Evangelical  worship,  Luther  issued,  in  1523,  his  Ordering  of 
Worship,  in  which  he  emphasized  the  central  place  of  preach 
ing;  his  Formula  of  the  Mass,  in  which,  though  still  using  Latin, 
he  did  away  with  its  sacrificial  implications,  recommended  the 
cup  for  lay  usage,  and  urged  the  employment  of  popular  hymns 
by  the  worshippers;  and  his  Taufbuchlein,  in  which  he  presented 
a  baptismal  service  in  German.  The  abandonment  of  private 
masses  and  masses  for  the  dead,  with  their  attendant  fees, 
raised  a  serious  problem  of  ministerial  support,  which  Luther 
proposed  to  solve  by  salaries  from  a  common  chest  maintained 
by  the  municipality.  Luther  held  that  great  freedom  was  per 
missible  in  details  of  worship,  as  long  as  the  "Word  of  God" 
was  kept  central.  The  various  reformed  congregations,  there 
fore,  soon  exhibited  considerable  variety,  and  the  tendency  to 
the  use  of  German  rapidly  increased,  Luther  himself  issuing  a 
German  Mass  in  1526.  Confession  Luther  regarded  as  exceed 
ingly  desirable  as  preparing  the  undeveloped  Christian  for  the 
Lord's  Supper,  but  not  as  obligatory.  Judged  by  the  develop 
ment  of  the  Reformation  elsewhere,  Luther's  attitude  in  mat 
ters  of  worship  was  strongly  conservative,  his  principle  being 
that  "what  is  not  contrary  to  Scripture  is  for  Scripture  and 
Scripture  for  it."  He  therefore  retained  much  of  Roman  usage, 
such  as  the  use  of  candles,  the  crucifix,  and  the  illustrative 
employment  of  pictures.1 

Thus  far  the  tide  had  been  running  strongly  in  directions 
favorable  to  Luther,  but  with  the  years  1524  and  1525  separa 
tions  began,  the  effects  of  which  were  to  limit  the  Reformation 
movement,  to  make  Luther  a  party  rather  than  a  national 
leader,  to  divide  Germany,  and  to  throw  Luther  into  the  arms 
of  the  temporal  princes.  The  first  of  these  separations  was 
from  the  humanists.  Their  admired  leader,  Erasmus,  had  lit 
tle  sympathy  with  Luther's  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
alone.  To  his  thinking  reform  would  come  by  education,  the 
rejection  of  superstition  and  a  return  to  the  "sources"  of 

i  Kidd,  121-133. 


SEPARATIONS  IN  THE  REFORM  FORCES     353 

Christian  truth.  The  stormy  writings  of  Luther  and  the  popu 
lar  tumult  were  becoming  increasingly  odious  to  him.  In  com 
mon  with  humanists  generally,  he  was  alarmed  by  the  great 
decline  in  attendance  on  the  German  universities,  which  set 
in  universally  with  the  rise  of  the  religious  controversy,  and 
the  fading  of  interest  in  purely  scholarly  questions.  Though 
frequently  urged,  he  was  long  reluctant  to  attack  Luther,  how 
ever;  but  at  last,  in  the  autumn  of  1524,  he  challenged  Luther's 
denial  of  free  will.  To  Erasmus  Luther  replied,  a  year  later, 
with  the  stiffest  possible  assertion  of  determinism  and  predes 
tination,  though  Melanchthon  was  soon  to  move  in  the  oppo 
site  direction.  The  breach  between  Luther  and  Erasmus  was 
incurable.  Most  of  the  humanists  deserted  Luther,  though 
among  the  disciples  of  Melanchthon  a  younger  school  of  Lu 
theran  humanists  slowly  developed.1 

To  some  in  Germany  Luther  seemed  but  a  half-way  reformer. 
Such  a  radical  was  his  old  associate  Karlstadt,  who,  having  lost 
all  standing  in  Wittenberg,  went  on  to  yet  more  radical  views 
and  practices  and,  securing  a  large  following  in  Orlamiinde, 
practically  defied  Luther  and  the  Saxon  government.  He 
denied  the  value  of  education,  dressed  and  lived  like  the  peas 
antry,  destroyed  images,  and  rejected  the  physical  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  Supper.  Even  more  radical  was  Thomas 
Miinzer,  who  asserted  immediate  revelation  and  attacked 
Romanists  and  Lutherans  alike  for  their  dependence  on  the 
letter  of  the  Scripture.  A  man  of  action,  he  led  in  riotous  at 
tacks  on  monasteries,  and  preached  battle  against  the  "god 
less."  These  and  men  like  them  Luther  strongly  opposed, 
naming  them  Schwarmer,  i.  e.,  fanatics;  but  their  presence  in 
dicated  a  growing  rift  in  the  forces  of  reform. 

Yet  more  serious  was  a  third  separation — that  caused  by 
the  peasants'  revolt.  The  state  of  the  German  peasantry  had 
long  been  one  of  increasing  misery  and  consequent  unrest, 
especially  in  southwestern  Germany,  where  the  example  of 
better  conditions  in  neighboring  Switzerland  fed  the  discon 
tent.  With  the  peasant  revolt  Lutheranism  had  little  directly 
to  do.  Its  strongest  manifestations  were  in  regions  into  which 
the  reform  movement  had  but  slightly  penetrated.  Yet  the 
religious  excitement  and  radical  popular  preaching  were  un 
doubtedly  contributing,  though  not  primary,  causes.  Begun 
1  Kidd,  pp.  171-174. 


354  THE  PEASANTS'  WAR 

in  extreme  southwestern  Germany  in  May  and  June,  1524,  the 
insurrection  was  exceedingly  formidable  by  the  spring  of  the 
following  year.  In  March,  1525,  the  peasants  put  forth  twelve 
articles,1  demanding  the  right  of  each  community  to  choose 
and  depose  its  pastor,  that  the  great  tithes  (on  grain)  be  used 
for  the  support  of  the  pastor  and  other  community  expenses, 
and  the  small  tithes  abolished,  that  serfdom  be  done  away, 
reservations  for  hunting  restricted,  the  use  of  the  forests  al 
lowed  to  the  poor,  forced  labor  be  regulated  and  duly  paid, 
just  rents  fixed,  new  laws  no  longer  enacted,  common  lands  re 
stored  to  communities  from  which  they  had  been  taken,  and 
payments  for  inheritance  to  their  masters  abolished.  To 
modern  thinking  these  were  moderate  and  reasonable  requests. 
To  that  age  they  seemed  revolutionary. 

Other  groups  of  peasants,  one  of  which  had  Thomas  Munzer 
as  a  leader,  were  far  more  radical.  Luther  at  first  attempted 
to  mediate,  and  was  disposed  to  find  wrong  on  both  sides ;  but 
as  the  ill-led  rising  fell  into  greater  excesses  he  turned  on  the 
peasants  with  his  savage  pamphlet,  Against  the  Murderous  and 
Thieving  Rabble  of  the  Peasants,  demanding  that  the  princes 
crush  them  with  the  sword.  The  great  defeat  of  Francis  I  of 
France,  near  Pavia  by  the  imperial  army  on  February  24,  1525, 
had  enabled  the  princes  of  Germany  to  master  the  rising.  The 
peasant  insurrection  was  stamped  out  in  frightful  bloodshed. 

Of  the  separations,  that  occasioned  by  the  peasants'  war  was 
undoubtedly  the  most  disastrous.  Luther  felt  that  his  Gospel 
could  not  be  involved  in  the  social  and  economic  demands  of 
the  disorderly  peasants.  But  the  cost  was  great.  Popular 
sympathy  for  his  cause  among  the  lower  orders  of  southern 
Germany  was  largely  forfeited,  his  own  distrust  of  the  common 
man  was  augmented,  his  feeling  that  the  reform  must  be  the 
work  of  the  temporal  princes  greatly  strengthened.  His  oppo 
nents,  moreover,  pointed  to  these  risings  as  the  natural  fruitage 
of  rebellion  against  the  ancient  church. 

Meanwhile  the  mediaeval,  though  in  his  way  reformatory, 
Adrian  VI  had  died,  and  had  been  succeeded  in  the  papacy,  in 
November,  1523,  by  Giulio  de'  Medici  as  Clement  VII  (1523- 
1534) — a  man  of  respectable  character  but  with  little  sense  of 
the  importance  of  religious  questions,  and  primarily  in  policy 
an  Italian  worldly  prince.  To  the  new  Reichstag  assembled  in 

1  Kidd,  pp.  174-179. 


ROMAN  OPPOSITION  ORGANIZED  355 

Nuremberg  in  the  spring  of  1524,  Clement  sent  as  his  legate  the 
skilful  cardinal,  Lorenzo  Campeggio  (1474-1539).  With  the 
Reichstag  Campeggio  could  effect  little.  It  promised  to  enforce 
the  Edict  of  Worms  against  Luther  uas  far  as  possible,"  and 
demanded  a  "general  assembly  of  the  German  nation'1  to  meet 
in  Speier,  in  the  following  autumn.  This  gathering  the  absent 
Emperor  succeeded  in  frustrating.  Campeggio's  real  success 
was,  however,  outside  the  Reichstag.  Through  his  efforts  a 
league  to  support  the  Roman  cause  was  formed  in  Regensburg, 
on  July  7,  1524,  embracing  the  Emperor's  brother,  Ferdinand, 
the  dukes  of  Bavaria,  and  a  number  of  south  German  bishops. 
A  fifth  of  the  ecclesiastical  revenues  was  assigned  to  the  lay 
princes,  regulations  to  secure  a  more  worthy  clergy  enacted, 
clerical  fees  lightened,  the  number  of  saints'  days  to  be  observed 
as  holidays  diminished,  and  preaching  to  be  in  accordance  with 
the  Fathers  of  the  ancient  church  rather  than  the  schoolmen.1 
It  was  the  beginning  of  a  real  Counter-Reformation ;  but  its 
effect  was  to  increase  the  separation  of  parties  in  Germany,  and 
to  strengthen  the  line  of  demarcation  on  the  basis  of  the  pos 
sessions  of  rival  territorial  princes.  The  nation  was  in  hope 
less  division. 

While  Rome  was  thus  strengthened  in  southern  Germany 
Luther's  cause  received  important  accessions.  Chief  of  these 
was  the  adhesion,  in  1524,  of  the  far-sighted  landgrave  Philip 
of  Hesse  (1518-1567),  the  ablest  politician  among  the  Lutheran 
princes.  At  the  same  time  Albert  of  Prussia,  grand  master  of 
the  Teutonic  Knights,  George  of  Brandenburg,  Henry  of  Meck 
lenburg,  and  Albert  of  Mansfeld  were  showing  a  decided  in 
terest  in  the  Evangelical  cause.  The  important  cities,  Magde 
burg,  Nuremberg,  Strassburg,  Augsburg,  Esslingen,  Ulm,  and 
others  of  less  moment  had  also  been  won  by  1524. 

It  was  in  the  dark  days  of  the  peasant  revolt  that  Luther's 
cautious  protector,  Frederick  the  Wise,  died  (May  5,  1525), 
and  was  succeeded  by  his  brother  John  "the  Steadfast"  (1525- 
1532).  The  change  was  favorable  to  Luther,  for  the  new  Elector 
was  a  declared  and  active  Lutheran.  In  these  months  falls, 
also,  Luther's  marriage  to  Katherine  von  Bora  (1499-1552), 
on  June  13,  1525,  a  union  which  was  to  manifest  some  of  the 
most  winsome  traits  of  the  reformer's  character.  The  marriage 
was  rather  suddenly  arranged,  and  the  charge  sometimes  made 

1  Kidd,  pp.  133-151. 


356  POLITICS  AIDS  THE  REFORMERS 

that  desire  for  matrimony  had  any  share  in  Luther's  revolt 
from  Rome  is  palpably  absurd ;  but,  though  this  repudiation 
of  clerical  celibacy  was  undoubtedly  favorable  in  its  ultimate 
results,  it  was,  at  the  time,  an  added  cause  of  division,  and  the 
union  of  an  ex-monk  and  a  former  nun  seemed  to  give  point 
to  the  bitter  jibe  of  Erasmus  that  the  Reformation,  which  had 
appeared  a  tragedy,  was  really  a  comedy,  the  end  of  which  was 
a  wedding.1 

The  suppression  of  the  peasant  revolt  had  left  the  princes 
and  the  cities  the  real  ruling  forces  in  Germany,  and  political 
combinations  were  now  formed  for  or  against  the  Reformation. 
Such  a  league  of  Catholics  was  instituted  by  Duke  George 
of  Saxony  and  other  Catholic  princes  met  in  Dessau  in  July, 
1525 ;  and  as  a  reply  Philip  of  Hesse  and  the  new  Elector  John  of 
Saxony  organized  a  Lutheran  league  in  Torgau.  The  great 
imperial  victory  of  Pa  via  in  the  previous  February  had  resulted 
in  the  captivity  of  the  defeated  King  of  France,  Francis  I. 
The  war  had  gone  decisively  in  favor  of  the  Emperor,  and  its 
results  seemed  to  be  garnered  by  the  Treaty  of  Madrid  of 
January,  1526,  by  which  Francis  gained  his  release.  Both 
monarchs  pledged  themselves  to  combined  efforts  to  put  down 
heresy.2  The  prospects  of  Lutheranism  were  indeed  dark. 
From  this  peril  the  Lutheran  cause  owed  its  rescue  primarily 
to  the  Pope.  Clement  VII,  always  more  an  Italian  prince 
than  a  churchman,  was  thoroughly  alarmed  at  the  increase  of 
imperial  power  in  Italy.  He  formed  an  Italian  league  against 
the  Emperor,  which  was  joined  by  the  French  King  in  May, 
1526.  Francis  I  repudiated  the  Treaty  of  Madrid,  and  now 
the  League  of  Cognac  ranged  France,  the  Pope,  Florence,  and 
Venice  against  the  Emperor.  The  results  of  Pavia  seemed 
lost.  The  war  must  be  fought  over  again.  The  Emperor's 
hands  were  too  full  to  interfere  in  the  religious  struggles  of 
Germany.3 

So  it  came  about  that  when  the  new  Reichstag  met  in  Speier 
in  the  summer  of  1526,  though  the  imperial  instructions  for 
bad  alterations  in  religion  and  ordered  the  execution  of  the 
Edict  of  Worms,  the  Lutherans  were  able  to  urge  that  the 
situation  had  changed  from  that  contemplated  by  the  Emperor 
when  his  commands  were  issued  from  Spain.  The  terrifying  ad 
vance  of  the  Turks,  which  was  to  result  in  the  Hungarian  disas- 

1  Kidd,  pp.  179,  180.  2  Ibid.,  p.  180.  3Ibid.,  p.  182. 


TERRITORIAL  CHURCHES  ORGANIZED       357 

ter  of  Mohacz  «>n  August  29, 1526,  also  counselled  military  unity. 
The  Reichstag,  therefore,  enacted  that,  pending  a  "  council 
or  a  national  assembly,"  each  of  the  territorial  rulers  of  the 
empire  is  "so  to  live,  govern,  and  carry  himself  as  he  hopes 
and  trusts  to  answer  it  to  God  and  his  imperial  majesty." 

This  was  doubtless  a  mere  ad  interim  compromise ;  but  the 
Lutheran  princes  and  cities  speedily  interpreted  it  as  full  legal 
authorization  to  order  their  ecclesiastical  constitutions  as  they 
saw  fit.  Under  its  shelter  the  organization  of  Lutheran  terri 
torial  churches  was  now  rapidly  accomplished.  Some  steps 
had  been  taken  toward  such  territorial  organization  even  be 
fore  the  Reichstag  of  1526.  Beyond  the  borders  of  the  empire 
Albert  of  Brandenburg  (1511-1568),  the  grand  master  of  ^the 
Teutonic  Knights  in  East  Prussia,  transformed  his  office  into 
a  hereditary  dukedom  under  the  overlord  ship  of  Poland,  in 

1525,  and  vigorously  furthered  the  Lutheranization  of  the  land.2 
In  electoral  Saxony  itself,  Elector  John  was  planning  a  more 
active    governmental    control    of    ecclesiastical    affairs,    and 
Luther  had  issued  his  German  Mass  and  Order  of  Divine  Service, 
of  1526,  before  the  Reichstag.3    The  decree  of  the  Reichstag 
now  greatly  strengthened  these  tendencies.     In  Hesse,  Land 
grave  Philip  caused  a  synod  to  be  held  in  Homberg,  in  October, 

1526,  where  a  constitution  was  adopted  largely  through  the 
influence  of  Francis  Lambert  (1487-1530),  a  pupil  of  Luther. 
In  each  community  the  faithful  communicants  were  to  con 
stitute  the  governing  body  by  which  pastor  should  be  chosen 
and  discipline  administered.     Representatives  from  these  local 
bodies,  a  pastor  and  a  lay  brother  from  each,  should  constitute 
an  annual  synod  for  all  Hesse,  of  which  the  landgrave  and  high 
nobles  should  also  be  members.4     Here  was  an  organization 
proposed  which  was  consonant,  in  large  measure,  with  Luther's 
earlier  views.     But  Luther  had  changed.     He  had  come  to 
distrust  the  common  man,  and  on  his  advice  the  landgrave 
rejected  the  proposals  and  adopted  instead  the  procedure  of 
electoral  Saxony. 

In  Saxony,  which  became  the  norm  in  a  general  way  for  the 
creation  of  territorial  churches,  "visitors"  were  appointed  by 
the  Elector  to  inquire  into  clerical  doctrine  and  conduct  on 
the  basis  of  articles  drawn  up  by  Melanchthon  in  1527,  and 

1  Kidd,  pp.  183-185.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  185-193. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  193-202.  4  Ibid.,  pp.  222-230. 


358  TERRITORIAL  CHURCHES 

enlarged  the  following  year.1  The  old  jurisdiction  of  bishops, 
was  cast  off,  the  land  was  divided  into  districts,  each  under  a 
"superintendent"  with  administrative,  but  not  spiritual, 
superiority  over  the  parish  minister,  and  in  turn  responsible 
to  the  Elector.  Unworthy  or  recalcitrant  clergy  were  driven 
out,  similarity  of  worship  secured,  and  monastic  property,  altar 
endowment  and  similar  foundations  confiscated,  in  part  for 
the  benefit  of  parish  churches  and  schools,  but  largely  for  that 
of  the  electoral  treasury.  In  a  word,  a  Lutheran  state  church, 
coterminous  with  the  electoral  territories,  and  having  all  bap 
tized  inhabitants  as  its  members,  was  substituted  for  the  old 
bishop-ruled  church.  Other  territories  of  Evangelical  Germany 
were  similarly  organized.  To  aid  in  popular  religious  instruc 
tion,  which  the  confusion  of  a  decade  had  reduced  to  a  de 
plorable  condition,  Luther  prepared  two  catechisms  in  1529, 
of  which  the  Short  Catechism  is  one  of  the  noblest  monuments 
of  the  Reformation.2 

That  this  development  of  territorial  churches  could  take 
place  was  due  to  favoring  political  conditions.  The  Emperor 
had  a  tremendous  war  to  wage  with  domination  in  Italy  as  its 
prize.  His  brother,  Ferdinand,  was  crowned  King  of  Hun 
gary  on  November  3,  1527,  and  thenceforth  was  in  struggle 
with  the  Turks.  Effective  interference  in  Germany  was  im 
possible.  But  fortune  favored  the  Emperor.  On  May  6,  1527, 
an  imperial  army  containing  many  German  Lutheran  recruits, 
captured  Rome,  shut  up  Pope  Clement  VII  in  the  castle  of 
San  Angelo,  and  subjected  the  city  to  every  barbarity.  Though 
fortune  seemed  to  turn  toward  the  French  in  the  early  part  of 
1528,  before  the  end  of  that  year  the  imperial  forces  had  as 
serted  their  mastery.  The  Pope  was  compelled  to  make  his 
peace  with  the  Emperor,  at  Barcelona,  on  June  29,  1529,3 
and  France  gave  up  the  struggle  by  the  Peace  of  Cambrai,  on 
the  5th  of  the  following  August.  The  great  war  which  had 
raged  since  1521  was  over,  and  Charles  V  could  now  turn  his 
attention  to  the  suppression  of  the  Lutheran  revolt.  Nor  had 
the  Lutheran  leaders  been  wholly  fortunate.  Deceived  by  a 
forgery  by  Otto  von  Pack,  an  official  of  ducal  Saxony,  the  Land 
grave  Philip  of  Hesse  and  the  Elector  John  of  Saxony  had 
been  convinced  that  the  Catholics  intended  to  attack  them. 
Philip  determined  to  anticipate  the  alleged  plot,  and  was  arm- 

1  Kidd,  pp.  202-205.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  205-222.  3  Ibid.,  p.  246. 


"PROTESTANTS''  359 

ing  for  that  purpose  in  1528,  when  the  forgery  was  discovered. 
The  effect  of  the  incident  was  to  embitter  the  relations  of  the 
two  great  ecclesiastical  parties. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  was  inevitable  that  when  the 
next  Reichstag  met  in  Speier,  in  February,  1529,  the  Catholic 
majority  should  be  strongly  hostile  to  the  Lutheran  innovators. 
That  Reichstag  now  ordered,  by  a  majority  decision,  that  no 
further  ecclesiastical  changes  should  be  made,  that  Roman 
worship  should  be  permitted  in  Lutheran  lands,  and  that  all 
Roman  authorities  and  orders  should  be  allowed  full  enjoy 
ment  of  their  former  rights,  property,  and  incomes.  This 
would  have  been  the  practical  abolition  of  the  Lutheran  terri 
torial  churches.  Unable  to  defeat  this  legislation,  the  Lutheran 
civil  powers  represented  in  the  Reichstag,  on  April  19,  1529, 
entered  a  formal  protest  of  great  historic  importance  since  it 
led  to  the  designation  of  the  party  as  "Protestant."  It  was 
supported  by  John  of  electoral  Saxony,  Philip  of  Hesse,  Ernst 
of  Liineburg,  George  of  Brandenburg-Ansbach,  Wolfgang  of 
Anhalt,  and  the  cities  Strassburg,  Ulm,  Constance,  Nuremberg, 
Lindau,  Kempten,  Memmingen,  Nordlingen,  Heilbronn,  Isny, 
St.  Gallen,  Reutlingen,  Weissenburg,  and  Windsheim.1 

The  Protestant  prospects  were  dark,  and  the  situation  de 
manded  a  defensive  union,  which  Philip  of  Hesse  undertook  to 
secure.  At  this  critical  juncture  the  Reformation  cause  was 
threatened  by  division  between  the  reformers  of  Saxony  and 
Switzerland,  and  by  the  rapid  spread  of  the  Anabaptists. 

SECTION   III.      THE   SWISS   REVOLT 

Switzerland,  though  nominally  a  part  of  the  empire,  had  long 
been  practically  independent.  Its  thirteen  cantons  were  united 
in  a  loose  confederacy,  each  being  practically  a  self-governing 
republic.  The  land,  as  a  whole,  was  deemed  the  freest  in 
Europe.  Its  sons  were  in  great  repute  as  soldiers  and  were 
eagerly  sought  as  mercenaries,  particularly  by  the  Kings  of 
France  and  the  Popes.  Though  the  general  status  of  education 
was  low,  humanism  had  penetrated  the  larger  towns,  and  in 
the  early  decades  of  the  sixteenth  century  had  notably  its 
home  in  Basel.  The  Swiss  reformation  was  to  have  its  sources 
in  humanism,  in  local  self-government,  in  hatred  of  ecclesi- 

i  Kidd,  pp.  239-245. 


360  ZWINGLI'S  DEVELOPMENT 

astical  restraint,  and  in  resistance  to  monastic  exactions,  espe 
cially  where  the  monasteries  were  large  landowners. 

Huldreich  Zwingli,  chief  of  the  reformers  of  German-speaking 
Switzerland,  was  born  on  January  1,  1484,  in  Wildhaus,  where 
his  father  was  the  bailiff  of  the  village  and  in  comfortable  cir 
cumstances.  An  uncle,  the  dean  of  Wesen,  started  him  on 
the  road  to  an  education,  which  was  continued  in  Basel,  and 
then  in  Bern  under  the  humanist  Heinrich  Wolflin  (Lupulus), 
from  1498  to  1500.  For  two  years  Zwingli  was  a  student  in 
the  University  of  Vienna,  where  Conrad  Celtes  had  great  fame 
in  the  classics.  From  1502  to  1506  he  continued  his  studies 
in  the  University  of  Basel,  graduating  as  bachelor  of  arts  in 
1504,  and  receiving  the  master's  degree  two  years  later.  At 
Basel  he  enjoyed  the  instruction  of  the  humanist  Thomas 
Wyttenbach  (1472-1526),  whom  he  gratefully  remembered  as 
having  taught  him  the  sole  authority  of  Scripture,  the  death  of 
Christ  as  the  only  price  of  forgiveness,  and  the  worthlessness 
of  indulgences.  Under  such  teaching  Zwingli  became  naturally 
a  humanist  himself,  eager  to  go  back  to  the  earlier  sources  of 
Christian  belief,  and  critical  of  what  the  humanists  generally 
deemed  superstition.  He  never  passed  through  the  deep  spiri 
tual  experience  of  sin  and  forgiveness  that  came  to  Luther. 
His  religious  attitude  was  always  more  intellectual  and  radical 
than  that  of  the  Saxon  reformer. 

The  year  of  Zwingli's  second  graduation  saw  his  appoint 
ment,  apparently  through  the  influence  of  his  clerical  uncle,  as 
parish  priest  in  Glarus.  Here  he  studied  Greek,  became  an  in 
fluential  preacher,  opposed  the  employment  of  Swiss  as  mer 
cenaries,  save  by  the  Pope,  and  in  1513  received  a  pension  from 
the  Pope,  anxious  to  secure  the  continued  military  support  of 
the  Swiss.  He  accompanied  the  young  men  of  his  parish  as 
chaplain  in  several  Italian  campaigns.  He  corresponded  with 
Erasmus  and  other  humanists.  His  knowledge  of  the  world 
was  increasing,  and  he  touched  life  on  many  sides.1 

Zwingli  was  patriotically  convinced  of  the  moral  evil  of  mer 
cenary  service,  but  the  French,  eager  to  enlist  Swiss  soldiers, 
made  so  much  trouble  in  his  Glarus  parish  that,  without  re 
signing  the  post,  he  transferred  his  activities  in  1516  to  the 
still-famous  pilgrim  shrine  of  Einsiedeln.  The  change  brought 
him  enlarged  reputation  as  a  preacher  and  a  student.  To  this 

1  Kidd,  pp.  374-380. 


ZWIXGLI   IN   ZURICH  361 

Einsiedeln  sojourn  Zwingli,  always  jealous  of  admitting  indebt 
edness  to  Luther,  later  ascribed  his  acceptance  of  the  Evan 
gelical  position.  The  evidence  that  has  survived  points,  how 
ever,  to  little  then  beyond  the  more  advanced  humanistic  at 
titude.  His  own  life  at  this  time  was,  moreover,  not  free  from 
reproach  for  breach  of  the  vow  of  chastity. 

His  opposition  to  foreign  military  service  and  reputation  as 
a  preacher  and  scholar  led  to  Zwingli's  election  by  the  Minster 
chapter  in  Zurich  as  people's  priest,  an  office  on  which  he  en 
tered  with  the  commencement  of  1519.  He  began  at  once  the 
orderly  exposition  of  whole  books  of  the  Bible,  commencing 
with  Matthew's  Gospel.  He  now  became  acquainted  with 
Luther's  writings.  He  was  brought  near  to  death  by  the 
plague.  He  preached  faithfully  against  mercenary  soldiering, 
so  that  Zurich  ultimately  (May,  1521)  forbad  the  practice.1 
His  own  spiritual  life  deepened,  through  bereavement  by  the 
death  of  a  beloved  brother  in  1520,  and  the  same  year  he  re 
signed  his  papal  pension. 

Though  Zwingli  had  thus  long  been  moving  in  the  reform 
atory  direction,  it  was  with  1522  that  his  vigorous  reformatory 
work  began.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  question  first 
at  issue  did  not  grow,  as  with  Luther,  out  of  a  profound  re 
ligious  experience,  but  out  of  the  conviction  that  only  the  Bible 
is  binding  on  Christians.  Certain  of  the  citizens  broke  the 
lenten  fast,  citing  Zwingli's  assertion  of  the  sole  authority  of 
Scripture  in  justification.  Zwingli  now  preached  and  published 
in  their  defense.  The  bishop  of  Constance,  in  whose  diocese 
Zurich  lay,  now  sent  a  commission  to  repress  the  innovation. 
The  cantonal  civil  government  ruled  that  the  New  Testament 
imposed  no  fasts,  but  that  the}'  should  be  observed  for  the 
sake  of  good  order.  The  importance  of  this  compromise  deci 
sion  was  that  the  cantonal  civil  authorities  practically  rejected 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishop  and  took  the  control  of  the 
Zurich  churches  into  their  own  hands.  In  the  August  follow 
ing  the  Zurich  burgomaster  laid  down  the  rule  that  the  pure 
Word  of  God  was  alone  to  be  preached,  and  the  road  to  revo 
lution  was  thus  fully  open.2 

Zwingli  believed  that  the  ultimate  authority  was  the  Chris 
tian  community,  and  that  the  exercise  of  that  authority  was 
through  the  duly  constituted  organs  of  civil  government  acting 

1  Kidd,  pp.  384-387.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  387-408. 


362  THE  REFORMATION  IN  ZURICH 

in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures.  Only  that  which  the  Bible 
commands,  or  for  which  distinct  authorization  can  be  found 
in  its  pages,  is  binding  or  allowable.  Hence  his  attitude  toward 
the  ceremonies  and  order  of  the  older  worship  was  much  more 
radical  than  that  of  Luther.  Really  the  situation  in  Zurich 
was  one  in  which  the  cantonal  government  introduced  the 
changes  which  Zwingli,  as  a  trusted  interpreter  of  Scripture 
and  a  natural  popular  leader,  persuaded  that  government  to 
sanction.  Zwingli  now  began  a  process  of  governmental  and 
popular  education,  which  he  employed  with  great  success. 
Persuaded  by  Zwingli,  the  cantonal  government  ordered  a 
public  discussion,  in  January,  1523,  in  which  the  Bible  only 
should  be  the  touchstone.  For  this  debate  Zwingli  prepared 
sixty-seven  brief  articles,  affirming  that  the  Gospel  derives  no 
authority  from  the  church,  that  salvation  is  by  faith,  and 
denying  the  sacrificial  character  of  the  mass,  the  salvatory 
character  of  good  works,  the  value  of  saintly  intercessors,  the 
binding  character  of  monastic  vows,  or  the  existence  of  pur 
gatory.  He  also  declared  Christ  to  be  the  sole  head  of  the 
church,  and  advocated  clerical  marriage.  In  the  resulting 
debate  the  government  declared  Zwingli  the  victor,  in  that  it 
affirmed  that  he  had  not  been  convicted  of  heresy,  and  directed 
that  he  should  continue  his  preaching.  It  was  an  indorsement 
of  his  teaching.1 

Changes  now  went  rapidly.  Priests  and  nuns  married. 
Fees  for  baptisms  and  burials  were  done  away.  In  a  second 
great  debate,  in  October,  1523,  Zwingli  and  his  associate  min 
ister,  Leo  Jud  (1482-1542),  attacked  the  use  of  images  and  the 
sacrificial  character  of  the  mass.  The  government  was  with 
them,  but  moved  cautiously.2  January,  1524,  saw  a  third 
great  debate.  The  upholders  of  the  old  order  were  given 
choice  of  conformity  or  banishment.  In  June  and  July,  1524, 
images,  relics,  and  organs  were  done  away.  December  wit 
nessed  the  confiscation  of  the  monastic  establishments,  their 
property  being  wisely  used,  in  large  part,  in  the  establishment 
of  excellent  schools.  The  mass  continued  till  Holy  Week  of 
1525,  when  it  too  was  abolished.  The  transformation  was 
complete.  Episcopal  jurisdiction  had  been  thrown  off,  the 
services  put  into  German,  the  sermon  made  central,  the  char 
acteristic  doctrines  and  ceremonies  of  the  older  worship  done 

1  Kidd,  pp.  408-423.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  424-441. 


SPREAD  OF  THE  REFORMATION  363 

away.1  Meanwhile,  on  April  2,  1524,  Zwingli  had  publicly 
married  Anna  Reinhard,  a  widow,  whom  he  and  his  friends, 
not  without  considerable  unfriendly  gossip,  had  treated  as  in 
some  sense  his  wife  since  1522.  Alb  this  time  the  Popes  had 
made  no  effective  interference  in  Zurich  affairs,  largely  by 
reason  of  the  political  value  of  Switzerland  in  the  wars.  The 
bishop  of  Constance  had  done  what  he  could,  but  to  no  avail. 

Naturally  Zwingli  followed  with  eagerness  the  fortunes  of 
the  ecclesiastical  revolution  in  other  parts  of  Switzerland  and 
the  adjacent  regions  of  Germany,  and  aided  it  to  the  utmost 
of  his  ability.  Basel,  where  the  civil  authority  had  gained  large 
influence  in  churchly  affairs  before  the  revolt,  was  won  gradu 
ally  for  the  Evangelical  cause,  chiefly  by  Johann  (Ecolampadius 
(1482-1531),  who  labored  there  continuously  from  1522.  There 
the  mass  was  abolished  in  1529.  (Ecolampadius  and  Zwingli 
were  warm  friends.  Bern,  the  greatest  of  the  Swiss  cantons, 
was  won  for  the  reform  in  1528,  after  much  preliminary  Evan 
gelical  labor,  by  a  public  debate  in  which  Zwingli  took  part.2 
St.  Gallen,  Schaffhausen,  Glarus,  and  Miilhausen  in  Alsace  were 
also  won.  Of  even  larger  importance  was  the  inclination  of 
the  great  German  city  of  Strassburg  to  the  Zwinglian,  rather 
than  the  Lutheran,  point  of  view.  In  that  city  the  Evangelical 
revolution,  begun  in  1521  by  Matthew  Zell  (1477-1548),  had 
been  carried  forward  vigorously  from  1523  by  Wolfgang  Capito 
(1478-1541)  and  by  the  able  and  peace-loving  Martin  Butzer 
(1491-1551),  though  not  wholly  completed  till  1529. 

Zwingli  and  Luther  were  in  many  respects  in  substantial 
agreement,  but  they  wrere  temperamentally  unlike,  and  their 
religious  experiences  had  been  very  different.  Luther  had 
reached  his  goal  by  a  profound  religious  struggle,  involving  a 
transforming  sense  of  relationship  between  his  soul  and  God. 
Zwingli  had  travelled  the  humanists'  road,  though  going  much 
farther  than  most  humanists.  His  emphases  were  unlike 
Luther's.  When  Luther  thought  of  the  why  of  salvation,  which 
was  relatively  infrequently,  he  gave  the  Augustinian  answer. 
Luther's  interest  was  much  more  in  the  how.  To  Zwingli  the 
will  of  God  rather  than  the  way  of  salvation  was  the  central 
fact  of  theology.  To  Luther  the  Christian  life  was  one  of 
freedom  in  forgiven  sonship.  To  Zwingli  it  was  far  more  one 
of  conformity  to  the  will  of  God  as  set  forth  in  the  Bible. 

1  Kidd,  pp.  441-450.  « Ibid.,  pp.  459-464. 


304        ZWINGLI  AND  LUTHER  IN  CONTEST 

Zwingli's  nature  was  intellectual  and  critical.  In  no  point 
of  Christian  doctrine  was  his  diversity  from  Luther  more  ap 
parent  than  in  their  unlike  interpretation  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  here  their  disagreement  unfortunately  ultimately  sundered 
the  Evangelical  ranks.  To  Luther  Christ's  words,  "This  is 
my  body, "  were  literally  true.  His  deep  religious  feeling  saw 
in  an  actual  partaking  of  Christ  the  surest  pledge  of  that  union 
with  Christ  and  forgiveness  of  sins  of  which  the  Supper  was 
the  divinely  attested  promise.  But  as  early  as  1521  a  Dutch 
lawyer,  Cornelius  Hoen,  had  urged  that  the  proper  interpre 
tation  is  "This  signifies  my  body."  Hoen's  argument  came 
to  Zwingli's  notice  in  1523,  and  confirmed  the  symbolic  under 
standing  of  the  words  to  which  the  Swiss  theologian  was 
already  inclined.  Henceforth  he  denied  any  physical  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  Supper,  and  emphasized  its  memorial  charac 
ter  and  its  significance  as  uniting  a  congregation  of  believers 
in  a  common  attestation  of  loyalty  to  their  Lord.  By  1524 
the  rival  interpretations  had  led  to  an  embittered  controversy 
of  pamphlets  in  which  Luther  and  Bugenhagen  on  the  one  side 
and  Zwingli  and  (Ecolampadius  on  the  other,  and  their  respec 
tive  associates,  took  part.  The  most  important  work  of 
Luther's  was  his  [Great]  Confession  Concerning  the  Lord's  Sup 
per,  of  1528.  Little  charity  was  shown  on  either  side.  To 
Zwingli  Luther's  assertion  of  the  physical  presence  of  Christ 
was  an  unreasoning  remnant  of  Catholic  superstition.  A  phys 
ical  body  could  be  only  in  one  place.  To  Luther  Zwingli's  in 
terpretation  was  a  sinful  exaltation  of  reason  above  Scripture, 
and  he  sought  to  explain  the  physical  presence  of  Christ  on 
ten  thousand  altars  at  once  by  a  scholastic  assertion,  derived 
largely  from  Occam,  that  the  qualities  of  Christ's  divine  na 
ture,  including  ubiquity,  were  communicated  to  His  human 
nature.  Luther  was  anxious,  also,  to  maintain  that  the  be 
liever  partook  of  the  whole  divine-human  Christ,  and  to  avoid 
any  dismemberment  of  His  person.  Luther  declared  Zwingli 
and  his  supporters  to  be  no  Christians,  while  Zwingli  affirmed 
that  Luther  was  worse  than  the  Roman  champion,  Eck. 
Zwingli's  views,  however,  met  the  approval  not  only  of  Ger 
man-speaking  Switzerland  but  of  much  of  southwestern  Ger 
many.  The  Roman  party  rejoiced  at  this  evident  division  of 
the  Evangelical  forces. 

Zwingli  was  the  most  gifted  of  any  of  the  reformers  politi- 


ZWINGLI'S  POLITICAL  PLANS  AND   DEATH    365 

cally,  and  developed  plans  which  were  far-reaching,  though 
in  the  end  futile.  The  old  rural  cantons,  Uri,  Schwyz,  Unter- 
walden,.  and  Zug,  were  strongly  conservative  and  opposed  to 
the  changes  in  Zurich,  and  with  them  stood  Lucerne,  the  whole 
constituting  a  vigorous  Roman  party.  By  April,  1524,  these 
had  formed  a  league  to  resist  heresy.  To  offset  this  effort  and 
to  carry  Evangelical  preaching  into  yet  wider  territories, 
Zwingli  now  proposed  that  Zurich  enter  into  alliance  with 
France  and  Savoy,  and  began  negotiations  with  the  dispos 
sessed  Duke  Ulrich  of  Wurttemberg.  Matters  drifted  along, 
but  a  more  successful  attempt  was  the  organization  of  "The 
Christian  Civic  Alliance,"  late  in  1527,  between  Zurich  and 
Constance,1  a  league  to  which  Bern  and  St.  Gallen  were 
added  in  1528,  and  Biel,  Miilhausen,  Basel,  and  Schaffhausen 
in  1529.  Though  Strassburg  joined  early  in  1530,  the  league 
was  far  less  extensive  than  Zwingli  planned.  As  it  was  it  was 
divisive  of  Swiss  unity,  and  the  conservative  Roman  cantons 
formed  a  counter  "  Christian  Union  "  and  secured  alliance  with 
Austria  in  1529.  Hostilities  were  begun.  But  Austrian  help 
for  the  Roman  party  was  not  forthcoming,  and  on  June  25, 
1529,  peace  was  made  between  the  two  parties  at  Kappel,  on 
terms  very  favorable  to  Zurich  and  the  Zwinglians.2  The 
league -with  Austria  was  abandoned. 

Zurich  was  now  at  the  height  of  its  power,  and  was  widely 
regarded  as  the  political  head  of  the  Evangelical  cause.  Yet 
the  peace  had  been  but  a  truce,  and  when,  in  1531,  Zurich  tried 
to  force  Evangelical  preaching  on  the  Roman  cantons  by  an 
embargo  on  shipment  of  food  to  them,  war  was  once  more 
certain.  Zurich,  in  spite  of  Zwingli's  counsels,  made  no  ade 
quate  preparation  for  the  struggle.  The  Roman  cantons 
moved  rapidly.  On  October  11,  1531,  they  defeated  the  men 
of  Zurich  in  battle  at  Kappel.  Among  the  slain  was  Zwingli 
himself.  In  the  peace  that  followed3  Zurich  was  compelled  to 
abandon  its  alliances,  and  each  canton  was  given  full  right  to 
regulate  its  internal  religious  affairs.  The  progress  of  the 
Reformation  in  German-speaking  Switzerland  was  permanently 
halted,  and  the  lines  drawn  substantially  as  they  are  to-day. 
In  the  leadership  of  the  Zurich  church,  not  in  his  political 
ambitions,  Zwingli  was  succeeded  by  the  able  and  conciliatory 
Heinrich  Bullinger  (1504-1575).  The  Swiss  movement,  as  a 

1  Kidd,  p.  469.  *  /^. j  p.  470.  s  jbidtf  pp.  475.476. 


366  ANABAPTISTS  IN  ZURICH 

whole,  was  to  be  modified  and  greatly  developed  by  the  genius 
of  Calvin;  and  to  the  churches  which  trace  their  spiritual 
parentage  to  him,  and  thus  in  part  to  Zwingli,  the  name  "  Re 
formed,"  as  distinguished  from  "Lutheran,"  was  ultimately 
to  be  given. 

SECTION   IV.      THE  ANABAPTISTS 

It  has  been  said,  in  speaking  of  Karlstadt,  that  some  who 
once  worked  with  Luther  came  to  feel  that  he  was  but  a  half 
way  reformer.  Such  was  even  more  largely  Zwingli's  experi 
ence.  Among  those  who  had  been  most  forward  in  favoring 
innovations  in  Zurich  were  Conrad  Grebel  and  Felix  Manz, 
both  from  prominent  families  of  the  city.  They  and  others 
soon  came  to  feel  that  Zwingli's  leadership  in  the  application  of 
the  Biblical  test  to  Zurich  practices  was  far  too  conservative. 
This  element  first  came  into  evidence  at  the  second  great  de 
bate,  in  October,  1523  (ante,  p.  362),  where  it  demanded  the 
immediate  abolition  of  images  and  of  the  mass — steps  for  which 
the  cantonal  authorities  were  not  as  yet  fully  ready.  An  abler 
participant  in  that  debate  was  Balthasar  Hubmaier  (1480?- 
1528),  once  a  pupil,  then  colleague  and  friend  of  Luther's  oppo 
nent,  Eck,  but  now  preacher  in  Waldshut,  on  the  northern  edge 
of  Switzerland.  Led  to  Evangelical  views  by  Luther's  writings 
in  1522,  he  was  successfully  urging  reform  in  his  city.  As 
early  as  May,  1523,  he  had  come  to  doubt  infant  baptism,  and 
had  discussed  it  with  Zwingli,  who,  according  to  his  testimony, 
then  sympathized  with  him.  His  criticisms  were  based  on 
want  of  Scriptural  warrant  for  administration  to  infants.1  By 
1524  Grebel  and  Manz  had  reached  the  same  conclusion,2 
but  it  was  not  till  early  in  1525  that  they  or  Hubmaier  translated 
theory  into  practice. 

Their  criticisms  led,  in  January,  1525,  to  a  public  debate 
with  Zwingli,  as  a  consequence  of  which  the  cantonal  authori 
ties  of  Zurich  ordered  all  children  baptized — there  had  evi 
dently  been  delay  on  the  part  of  some  parents — and  in  par 
ticular  directed  Grebel  and  Manz  to  cease  from  disputing,  and 
banished  the  priest  of  Wytikon,  Wilhelm  Roubli.3  To  these 
men  this  seemed  a  command  by  an  earthly  power  to  act  coun 
ter  to  the  Word  of  God.  They  and  some  of  their  friends 

1  Kidd,  p.  451.  2  Ibid.,  p.  452.  3  Ibid.,  pp.  453,  454. 


SPREAD  OF  THE  ANABAPTISTS  367 

gathered  in  a  private  house  in  Zollicon,  near  Zurich,  on  Feb 
ruary  7, 1525,  and  there  Manz,  or  Georg  Blaurock,  once  a  monk, 
instituted  believers'  baptism  by  sprinkling.  A  few  weeks  later 
a  case  of  immersion  occurred,  and  after  Easter,  Hubmaier  was 
baptized  in  Waldshut  by  Roubli.1 

These  acts  constituted  the  groups  separate  communions. 
By  their  opponents  they  were  nicknamed  "Anabaptists,"  or 
rebaptizers.  Really,  since  they  denied  the  validity  of  their 
baptism  in  infancy,  the  name  was  inappropriate,  and  "Bap 
tists  "  would  be  the  truer  designation ;  but  as  a  title  consecrated 
by  long  usage  to  a  remarkable  movement  of  the  Reformation 
age,  the  more  common  name  is  convenient.  The  Zurich  gov 
ernment,  in  March,  1526,  ordered  Anabaptists  drowned,  in 
hideous  parody  of  their  belief,  and  a  few  months  later  Manz 
thus  suffered  martyrdom.2  Zwingli  opposed  them  with  much 
bitterness,  but  with  little  success  in  winning  them  from  their 
position.3 

In  Waldshut  Hubmaier  soon  gathered  a  large  Anabaptist 
community,  and  was  even  more  successful  in  propagating  his 
opinions  by  his  pen.  In  his  view  the  Bible  is  the  sole  law  of 
the  church,  and  according  to  the  Scriptural  test  the  proper 
order  of  Christian  development  is,  preaching  the  Word,  hear 
ing,  belief,  baptism,  works — the  latter  indicating  a  life  lived 
with  the  Bible  as  its  law.  Waldshut,  however,  was  soon  in 
volved  in  the  peasant  revolt — in  how  far  through  Hubmaier 
is  doubtful — and  shared  the  collapse  of  that  movement.  Hub 
maier  had  to  fly,  and  the  city  was  once  more  Catholic.  Im 
prisoned  and  tortured  in  Zurich,  he  fled  to  Moravia,  where  he 
propagated  the  Anabaptist  movement  with  much  success. 

These  persecutions  had  the  effect  of  spreading  the  Ana 
baptist  propaganda  throughout  Germany  and  the  Netherlands. 
The  movement  soon  assumed  great  proportions,  especially 
among  the  lower  classes,  when  the  miserable  failure  of  the  peas 
ant  revolt  had  caused  deep  distrust  of  the  Lutheran  cause,  now 
wholly  associated  with  territorial  princes  and  aristocratic  city 
magistrates.  In  the  still  Catholic  parts  of  the  empire  the  Ana 
baptist  propaganda  practically  superseded  the  Lutheran.  On 
the  other  hand,  Anabaptist  rejection  of  princely  control  but 
strengthened  the  hostility  of  the  Lutheran  and  Roman  authori 
ties.  In  February,  1527,  a  meeting  of  Anabaptist  leaders  was 

1  Kidd,  pp.  454,  455.  2  Ibid.,  p.  455.  3  Ibid.,  pp.  456-458. 


368  BELIEFS  OF  THE  ANABAPTISTS 

held  in  Schlatt,  where  seven  articles  of  faith  were  drawn  up  by 
Michael  Sattler,  an  earnest  and  worthy  former  monk.  In  them 
believers'  baptism  was  asserted.  The  church  is  regarded  as 
composed  only  of  local  associations  of  baptized  experiential 
Christians — united  as  the  body  of  Christ  by  common  observance 
of  the  Lord's  Supper;  its  only  weapon  is  excommunication. 
Absolute  rejection  of  all  "servitude  of  the  flesh,"  such  as  the 
worship  of  the  Roman,  Lutheran,  and  Zwinglian  Churches,  is 
demanded.  Each  congregation  is  to  choose  its  own  officers 
and  administer  through  them  its  discipline.  While  civil  gov 
ernment  is  still  a  necessity  in  this  imperfect  world,  the  Chris 
tian  should  have  no  share  in  it,  nor  should  he  take  any  form 
of  oath.  Here  were  ideas  which  were  to  be  represented,  in 
varying  proportions,  by  later  Baptists,  Congregationalists,  and 
Quakers,  and  through  them  to  have  a  profound  influence  on 
the  religious  development  of  England  and  America. 

The  Anabaptist  ideal  implied  a  self-governing  congregation, 
independent  of  state  or  episcopal  control,  having  the  Bible  as 
its  law,  and  living  a  rather  ascetic  life  of  strict  conformity  to 
a  literal  interpretation  of  supposedly  Biblical  requirements. 
The  sources  of  these  opinions  are  still  in  dispute.  By  some 
the  Anabaptists  are  regarded  as  the  radicals  of  the  Reforma 
tion  period ;  by  others  as  the  fruit  of  new  interest  in  Bible  read 
ing  by  the  literal-minded ;  by  still  others  as  revivals  of  mediaeval 
anti-Roman  sects.  There  is  truth  in  all  these  theories.  The 
Anabaptists  themselves  had  no  consciousness  of  connection 
with  pre-Reformation  movements;  they  made  the  Bible  liter 
ally  their  law,  but  many  of  their  characteristics  are  undoubt 
edly  pre-Reformation.  Such  is  their  view  of  the  Bible  as  a 
new  law  in  church  and  state,  through  obedience  to  which 
God's  favor  is  to  be  preserved.  They  had  as  little  sympathy 
with  Luther's  conception  of  the  Gospel  as  summed  up  in  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  as  with  the  Roman  conception  of  salvation 
through  the  sacraments.  Pre-Reformation  is  their  ascetic 
view  of  the  Christian  life.  So  is  their  conception  of  the  state 
as  a  concession  to  sin,  and  unworthy  of  the  participation  of  a 
Christian  in  its  administration.  Such,  also,  are  their  strong 
apocalyptic  and  mystical  tendencies. 

The  views  which  have  been  indicated  were  those  of  the 
overwhelming  majority  of  Anabaptists;  but  a  radical  move 
ment  attracts  extremists,  and  there  were  not  a  few  who  went 


ANABAPTIST  MARTYRS  369 

much  further,  tyut  cannot  he  regarded  as  representative  of  the 
Anabaptists  as  a  whole.  Such  was  the  learned  humanist 
Johann  Denk  (?-1527),  who  taught  an  inner  light  superior  to 
all  Scripture,  saw  in  Christ  only  the  highest  human  example 
of  love,  and  held  that  the  Christian  may  live  without  sin. 
Associated  with  Denk  in  these  opinions,  was  the  learned  Ludwig 
Haetzer,  to  whom  was  due,  with  Denk's  aid,  a  translation  of 
the  Old  Testament  prophetical  books,  but  who  was  beheaded 
for  adulteries  at  Constance  in  1529.  The  radical  preacher, 
Hans  Hut,  to  whose  work  much  of  the  rapid  spread  of  Ana 
baptist  views  among  the  working  classes  of  south  Germany 
and  Austria  was  due,  declared  himself  a  prophet,  affirming  that 
persecution  of  the  saints  would  be  immediately  followed  by 
the  destruction  of  the  empire  by  the  Turks,  following  which 
event  the  saints  would  be  gathered,  and  by  them  all  priests  and 
unworthy  rulers  destroyed,  whereupon  Christ  would  visibly 
reign  on  earth.  In  Hubmaier,  Hut  had  a  vigorous  opponent, 
but  Hut's  preaching  ended  only  with  his  death,  in  1527  in 
Augsburg,  through  burns  received  in  an  attempt  to  escape 
from  the  prison  by  setting  it  afire.  Some  of  the  more  radical 
Anabaptist  leaders  taught  community  of  goods  and  social 
revolution. 

Everywhere  the  hand  of  the  authorities,  Catholic  and  Evan 
gelical,  was  heavy  on  the  Anabaptists — though  most  Prot 
estant  territories  used  banishment  rather  than  the  death 
penalty.  Their  leaders  were  martyred.  In  1527  Manz  met 
death  by  drowning  in  Zurich,  while  Sattler  was  burned  and  his 
wife  drowned  near  Rottenburg.  The  next  year  Hubmaier 
was  burned  in  Vienna  and  his  wife  drowned.  Blaurock  was 
burned  in  the  Tyrol  in  1529.  With  these  leaders  perished 
great  numbers  of  their  followers.  Yet  the  movement  con 
tinued  to  spread,  and  by  1529  was  exceedingly  perilous  for  the 
Protestant  cause,  being  looked  upon  by  the  Catholics  as  the 
legitimate  outcome  of  revolt  from  Rome,  dividing  the  forces 
of  reform,  and  to  the  thinking  of  the  Lutherans  bringing  the 
Evangelical  cause  into  discredit.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
one  important  effect  of  the  Anabaptist  movement  was  to  at 
tach  the  Lutherans  more  strongly  to  the  conception  of  prince 
and  magistrate  ruled  territorial  churches  as  the  only  guar 
antee  of  good  order  and  of  effective  opposition  to  Rome. 


370  THE  MARBURG  COLLOQUY 

SECTION  V.      GERMAN  PROTESTANTISM  ESTABLISHED 

The  successful  conclusion  of  the  great  war  with  France  and 
reconciliation  with  Pope  Clement  VII  had  left  the  Emperor 
free,  in  1529,  to  interfere  at  last  effectively  in  German  affairs. 
The  Reichstag  of  Speier,  of  that  year,  alarmed  at  Lutheran 
progress  and  the  spread  of  the  Anabaptists,  and  conscious  of 
the  change  in  the  Emperor's  prospects,  had  forbidden  further 
Lutheran  advance,  and  practically  ordered  the  restoration  of 
Roman  episcopal  authority.  The  Lutheran  minority  had  pro 
tested.  In  this  threatening  situation  Philip  of  Hesse  had  at 
tempted  to  secure  a  defensive  league  of  all  German  and  Swiss 
Evangelical  forces.  The  chief  hindrances  were  the  doctrinal 
differences  between  the  two  parties,  but  Philip  hoped  that  they 
might  be  adjusted  by  a  conference,  and  though  Luther  was 
opposed,  consent  was  at  last  secured,  and  October  1, 1529,  saw 
Luther  and  Melanchthon  met  face  to  face  with  Zwingli  and 
(Ecolampadius,  in  Philip's  castle  in  Marburg.  With  them  were 
a  number  of  the  lesser  leaders  of  both  parties.  During  the 
succeeding  days  the  Marburg  colloquy  ran  its  course.  Luther 
was  somewhat  suspicious  of  the  soundness  of  the  Swiss  on  the 
doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  original  sin,  but  the  real  point  of 
difference  was  the  presence  or  absence  of  Christ's  physical 
body  in  the  Supper.  Luther  held  firmly  to  the  literal  inter 
pretation  of  the  words:  "This  is  My  body."  Zwingli  urged 
the  familiar  argument  that  a  physical  body  could  not  be  in 
two  places  at  the  same  time.  Agreement  was  impossible. 
Zwingli  urged  that  both  parties  were,  after  all,  Christian  breth 
ren,  but  Luther  declared:  "You  have  a  different  spirit  than 
we."  x 

Yet  Philip  would  not  let  the  hope  of  a  protective  league 
thus  vanish,  and  he  persuaded  the  two  parties  to  draw  up 
fifteen  articles  of  faith.  On  fourteen  there  was  agreement. 
The  fifteenth  had  to  do  with  the  Supper,  and  here  there  was 
unanimity  on  all  save  the  one  point  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's 
presence,  where  the  differences  were  stated.  These  Marburg 
Articles  both  sides  now  signed  with  the  provision  that  "each 
should  show  Christian  love  to  the  other  as  far  as  the  conscience 
of  each  may  permit."  2  Luther  and  Zwingli  each  left  Mar 
burg  with  the  conviction  that  he  was  the  victor.  On  the  way 

1  Kidd,  pp.  247-254.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  254,  255. 


THE  "AUGSBURG  CONFESSION"  371 

home  Luther  prepared  a  somewhat  more  pointed  series  of 
articles — the  Schwabach  Articles — on  the  basis  of  those  of 
Marburg.1  Their  greatest  significance  for  the  development  of 
Lutheranism  is,  perhaps,  the  declaration  that  "the  church  is 
nothing  else  than  believers  in  Christ  who  hold,  believe,  and 
teach  the  above  enumerated  articles."  The  original  Lutheran 
conception  of  a  church  composed  of  those  justified  by  their 
faith,  had  become  transformed  into  that  of  those  who  not  only 
have  faith  but  accept  a  definite  and  exact  doctrinal  statement. 
These  Schwabach  Articles  were  now  made  by  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  and  the  margrave  of  Brandenburg-Ansbach  the  test 
of  political  confederacy.  Only  Nuremberg  of  the  great  south 
German  cities  would  accept  them.  The  defensive  league  of 
Evangelicals  which  Philip  had  hoped,  was  impossible.  The 
Lutherans  and  the  Swiss  each  went  their  own  way,  for  the  divi 
sion  was  permanent. 

In  January,  1530,  the  Emperor  sent  the  call  from  Italy, 
where  he  was  about  to  be  crowned  by  the  Pope,  for  a  Reichstag 
to  meet  in  Augsburg.  With  unexpected  friendliness,  while  de 
claring  the  adjustment  of  religious  differences  to  be  a  main 
object  of  its  meeting,  he  promised  a  kindly  hearing  for  all  rep 
resentations.  That  demanded  of  the  Protestants  a  statement 
of  their  beliefs  and  of  their  criticisms  of  the  older  practice, 
and  these  they  now  set  about  to  prepare.2  Luther,  Melanch- 
thon,  Bugenhagen,  and  Jonas  drew  up  their  criticisms  of  Roman 
practices,  which,  as  worked  over  by  Melanchthon,  constitute 
the  second,  or  negative,  part  of  the  ,  Augsburg  Confession; 
and  a  little  later  Melanchthon  prepared  its  affirmative  articles, 
which  form  the  first  part.  On  June  25,  1530,  it  was  read  to 
the  Emperor  in  German.  It  bore  the  approving  signatures  of 
Elector  John  of  Saxony,  his  heir,  John  Frederick,  Margrave 
George  of  Brandenburg-Ansbach,  Dukes  Ernst  and  Franz  of 
Brunswick-Liineburg,  Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse,  Wolfgang  of 
Anhalt,  and  of  the  representatives  of  Nuremberg  and  Reut- 
lingen.  Before  the  close  of  the  Reichstag  the  cities  of  Heil- 
bronn,  Kempten,  Weissenburg,  and  Windsheim  also  signified 
their  approval  of  this  Augsburg  Confession.* 

The  Augsburg  Confession  was  chiefly  the  work  of  the  mild 
and  conciliatory  Melanchthon.  Though  kept  informed  of  the 

1  Kidd,  p.  255.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  257-259. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  259-289 ;  in  Eng.  tr.  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  3 :  3-73. 


372  THE   "AUGSBURG  CONFESSION" 

course  of  events,  Luther,  as  under  imperial  ban,  could  not 
come  to  Augsburg  and  remained  in  Coburg.  Melanchthon 
modified  his  draft  and  made  concessions,  till  checked  by  his 
fellow  Protestants.  Nor  was  it  wholly  conciliation  that  moved 
Melanchthon.  His  purpose  was  to  show  that  the  Lutherans 
had  departed  in  no  vital  and  essential  respect  from  the  Catholic 
Church,  or  even  from  the  Roman  Church,  as  revealed  in  its 
earlier  writers.  That  agreement  is  expressly  affirmed,  and 
many  ancient  heresies  are  carefully  repudiated  by  name.  On 
the  other  hand,  Zwinglian  and  Anabaptist  positions  are  ener 
getically  rejected.  The  sole  authority  of  Scripture  is  nowhere 
expressly  asserted.  The  papacy  is  nowhere  categorically  con 
demned.  The  universal  priesthood  of  believers  is  not  men 
tioned.  Yet  Melanchthon  gave  a  thoroughly  Protestant  tone 
to  the  confession  as  a  whole.  Justification  by  faith  is  ad 
mirably  defined,  the  Protestant  notes  of  the  church  made 
evident;  invocation  of  saints,  the  mass,  denial  of  the  cup, 
monastic  vows,  and  prescribed  fasting  rejected. 

To  the  Emperor  Zwingli  sent  a  vigorous  expression  of  his 
views,  which  received  scanty  attention.  A  more  significant 
event  was  the  presentation  of  a  joint  confession  by  the  Zwin- 
glian-inclined  south  German  cities,  Strassburg,  Constance, 
Memmingen,  and  Lindau — the  Confessio  Tetrapolitana — largely 
from  the  pen  of  Butzer,  in  which  a  position  intermediate  be 
tween  that  of  the  Zwinglians  and  Lutherans  was  maintained. 

The  papal  legate,  Cardinal  Campeggio,  advised  l  that  the 
confession  be  examined  by  Roman  theologians  present  in 
Augsburg.  This  the  Emperor  approved,  and  chief  among 
these  experts  was  Luther's  old  opponent,  Eck.  Melanchthon 
was  willing  to  make  concessions  that  would  have  ruined  the 
whole  Lutheran  cause,2  but  fortunately  for  it  the  Evangelical 
princes  were  of  sterner  stuff.  The  Catholic  theologians  pre 
pared  a  confutation,  which  was  sent  back  to  them  by  the 
Emperor  and  Catholic  princes  as  too  polemic,  and  was  at  last 
presented  to  the  Reichstag  in  much  milder  form  on  August  3. 

The  Emperor  still  hoped  for  reconciliation,  and  committees 
of  conference  were  now  appointed ;  but  their  work  was  vain — 
a  result  to  which  Luther's  firmness  largely  contributed.3  The 
Catholic  majority  voiced  the  decision  of  the  Reichstag  that 
the  Lutherans  had  been  duly  confuted,  that  they  be  given 

1  Kidd,  pp.  289-293.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  293,  294.  3  Ibid.,  p.  290- 


THE  SCHMALKALDIC  LEAGUE  373 

till  April  15,  1531,  to  conform;  that  combined  action  be  had 
against  Zwinglians  and  Anabaptists,  and  that  a  general  council 
be  sought  within  a  year  to  heal  abuses  in  the  church.  The  re 
constituted  imperial  law  court  should  decide,  in  Catholic  inter 
est,  cases  of  secularization.1  The  Lutherans  protested,  de 
clared  their  confession  not  refuted,  and  called  attention  to 
Melanchthon's  Apology,  or  defense  of  the  confession,  which  he 
had  hastily  prepared  when  the  vanity  of  concessions  was  at 
last  becoming  apparent  even  to  him.  That  Apology,  rewritten 
and  published  the  next  year  (1531),  was  to  be  one  of  the  classics 
of  Lutheranism. 

Such  a  situation  demanded  defensive  union.  Even  Luther, 
who  had  held  it  a  sin  to  oppose  the  Emperor  by  force,  now  was 
willing  to  leave  the  rightfulness  of  such  resistance  to  the 
decision  of  the  lawyers.  At  Christmas  the  Lutheran  princes 
assembled  in  Schmalkalden  and  laid  the  foundations  of  a  league. 
Butzer,  whose  union  efforts  were  unremitting,  persuaded  Strass- 
burg  to  accept  the  Augsburg  Confession — an  example  which 
had  great  effect  on  other  south  German  cities.  Finally,  on 
February  27,  1531,  the  Schmalkaldic  league  was  completed. 
Electoral  Saxony,  Hesse,  Brunswick,  Anhalt,  and  Mansfeld 
stood  in  defensive  agreement  with  the  cities  Strassburg,  Con 
stance,  Ulm,  Reutlingen,  Memmingen,  Lindau,  Isny,  Bibe- 
rach,  Magdeburg,  Bremen,  and  Llibeck.2 

Strong  as  the  position  of  Charles  V  appeared  on  the  surface 
it  was  not  so  in  reality  in  the  face  of  this  united  opposition. 
The  Catholic  princes  were  jealous  of  one  another  and  of  the 
Emperor.  The  Pope  feared  a  general  council.  France  was 
still  to  be  reckoned  with.  The  fatal  day— April  15,  1531- 
therefore  passed  without  the  threatened  result.  In  October, 
1531,  the  death  of  Zwingli  at  Kappel  (ante,  p.  365)  deprived 
Swiss  Evangelicalism  of  its  vigorous  head,  and  inclined  south 
German  Protestantism  to  closer  union  with  that  of  Witten 
berg.  The  spring  of  1532  brought  a  new  danger  to  the  empire 
as  a  whole,  that  of  Turkish  invasion.  In  1529  the  Turks  had 
besieged  Vienna,  and  before  their  advance  religious  differences 
had,  in  a  measure,  to  give  way.  On  July  23,  1532,  the  Emperor 
and  the  Schmalkaldic  league  agreed  to  the  truce  of  Nuremberg, 
by  which  all  existing  lawsuits  over  secularizations  should  be 
dropped  and  peace  was  assured  to  the  Protestants  until  a 

1  Kidd,  pp.  298-300.  2  Ibid.,  p.  301. 


374  PROTESTANT  GROWTH 

general  council,  or  at  least  a  new  Reichstag,  should  assemble.1 
Shortly  after  Charles  V  left  Germany  for  Italy  and  Spain,  not 
to  return  till  1541.  Though  still  precarious,  the  Protestant 
outlook  had  greatly  improved. 

Protestantism  now  rapidly  won  new  territories.  By  1534 
Anhalt-Dessau,  Hanover,  Frankfort,  and  Augsburg  had  been 
gained.  Of  even  greater  moment  was  the  conquest  for  Protes 
tantism  of  Wurttemberg  by  Philip  of  Hesse,  from  the  Em 
peror's  brother,  Ferdinand,  and  the  restoration  of  its  Duke 
Ulrich — a  result  greatly  aided  by  Catholic  jealousy  of  the  power 
of  the  house  of  Habsburg.  The  death  of  Duke  George,  in  1539, 
was  followed  by  the  triumph  of  Protestantism  in  ducal  Saxony, 
and  the  same  year  a  cautious  adhesion  to  the  Reformation  was 
won  from  electoral  Brandenburg. 

This  growing  victory  of  Lutheranism  was  aided  by  a  tragic 
episode  of  1533-1535,  which  robbed  Anabaptism  of  its  influ 
ence  in  Germany — the  Miinster  revolution.  The  Anabaptists 
in  general  were  peaceable,  if  rather  ignorant,  people,  of  great 
religious  earnestness,  and  patient  endurance  in  persecution. 
The  Miinster  episode  was  not  typical  of  them  as  a  whole. 
Yet  there  were  among  them  many  radicals  of  whom  Hans  Hut 
(ante,  p.  369)  was  an  early  example.  Such  a  leader  was  Mel- 
chior  Hoffmann.  At  first  a  devoted  Lutheran,  he  became  an 
equally  earnest  Anabaptist,  with  added  claims  to  prophetic 
inspiration.  His  great  success  was  in  Friesland.  He  declared 
that  Strassburg  had  been  divinely  designated  as  the  new 
Jerusalem,  where  he,  as  the  prophet  of  the  new  dispensation, 
should  suffer  imprisonment  for  six  months,  but  with  1533  the 
end  of  the  world  would  come,  and  all  who  opposed  the  "saints" 
be  destroyed.  In  this  faith  he  went  to  Strassburg,  and  his 
prophecy  was  so  far  fulfilled  that  he  was  there  imprisoned,  and 
in  prison  he  remained  till  his  death  in  1543. 

Hoffmann's  apocalyptic  preaching  won  many  disciples  in 
the  Netherlands.  One  of  these,  Jan  Mathys,  a  baker  of  Har 
lem,  gave  himself  forth  as  the  prophet  Enoch,  and  soon  spread 
a  fanatical  propaganda  widely  through  the  Netherlands  and 
adjacent  parts  of  Germany.  Unlike  Hoffmann,  who  would 
wait  for  the  power  of  God  to  bring  in  the  new  age,  Mathys 
would  inaugurate  it  by  force.  Popular  democratic  discontent 
gave  him  his  opportunity. 

1  Kidd,  pp.  302-304. 


THE  MUNSTER  TRAGEDY  375 

Nowhere  was  this  new  teaching  more  influential  than  in 
Miinster,  where  Bernt  Rothmann,  the  Evangelical  preacher, 
was  won  for  radical  views  in  January,  1534.  Thither  came 
Mathys  soon  after,  and  a  tailor  of  Leyden,  Jan  Beukelssen. 
It  was  now  asserted  that  God  had  rejected  Strassburg  by 
reason  of  its  unbelief,  and  chosen  Miinster  as  the  new  Jeru 
salem  in  its  stead.  Radicals  flocked  thither  in  large  numbers. 
In  February,  1534,  they  gained  the  mastery  of  the  city,  and 
drove  out  those  who  would  not  accept  the  new  order.  The 
bishop  of  Miinster  laid  siege  to  the  city.  Mathys  was  killed 
in  battle.  Jan  Beukelssen  was  proclaimed  King.  Polygamy 
was  established,  community  of  goods  enforced,  all  opponents 
bloodily  put  down.  The  struggle,  though  heroically  maintained, 
was  hopeless.  The  bishop,  aided  by  Catholic  and  Lutheran 
troops,  captured  the  city  on  June  24,  1535,  and  the  surviving 
leaders  were  put  to  death  by  extreme  torture.  For  German 
Anabaptism  it  was  a  catastrophe.  Such  fanaticism  was  pop 
ularly  supposed  to  be  characteristic  of  the  Anabaptists,  and 
the  name  became  one  of  ignominy.  For  Lutheranism  it  was  a 
gain.  It  freed  the  Lutheran  cause  from  the  Anabaptist  rivalry, 
but  it  made  Lutheranism  even  more  positively  than  before  a 
party  of  princely  and  middle-class  sympathies.  As  for  the 
Anabaptist  movement  itself  it  came,  especially  in  the  Nether 
lands,  under  the  wise,  peace-loving,  anti-fanatical  leadership 
of  Menno  Simons  (1492-1559),  to  whom  its  worthy  reorganiza 
tion  was  primarily  due,  and  from  whom  the  term  "Mennonite" 
is  derived. 

Charles  V  had  never  ceased  to  hope  and  to  labor  for  a  gen 
eral  council,  by  which  the  divisions  of  the  church  could  be 
healed  and  administrative  reforms  effected.  From  Clement 
VII  he  could  not  secure  it.  Paul  III  (1534-1549),  who  suc 
ceeded  Clement,  though  by  no  means  a  single-hearted  religious 
man,  had  much  more  appreciation  than  Clement  of  the  gravity 
of  the  situation  caused  by  the  Reformation.  He  promptly  ap 
pointed  as  cardinals  Gasparo  Contarini  (1483-1542),  Jacopo 
Sadoleto  (1477-1547),  Reginald  Pole  (1500-1558),  and  Gio 
vanni  Pietro  Caraffa  (1476-1559),  all  men  desirous  of  reform 
in  morals,  zeal,  and  administration,  who  laid  before  the  Pope, 
in  1538,  extensive  recommendations  for  ecclesiastical  better 
ments.1  By  Paul  III  a  general  council  was  actually  called 
1  Kidd,  pp.  307-318. 


376         PLANS  OF  THE  EMPEROR  CHARLES 

to  meet  In  Mantua  in  1537.  Before  the  date  set  the  new  war 
between  Charles  V  and  Francis  I  of  France  (1536-1538)  had 
made  its  assembly  impossible.  Charles  had  set  his  heart  on 
the  council,  and  before  the  time  that  it  should  have  opened 
he  demanded  of  the  Protestant  leaders  assembled  in  Schmal- 
kalden,  in  February,  1537,  that  they  agree  to  take  part.  The 
imperial  order  put  them  in  a  difficult  position.  They  had  long 
talked  of  a  general  council.  Luther  had  appealed  to  such  a 
gathering  as  early  as  1518.  But  they  saw  clearly  that  they 
would  be  outvoted,  and  they  refused  to  share  in  the  council 
as  in  an  Italian  city,  and  under  the  dominance  of  the  Pope. 

Charles  saw  that  a  council  was  impossible  for  the  time, 
and  he  now  tried  the  experiment  of  reunion  discussions.  Such 
were  actually  held  in  Hagenau  in  June,  1540,  in  Worms  later 
in  the  same  year,  and  in  Regensburg  in  April,  1541.  Melanch- 
.thon,  Butzer,  Calvin,  and  others  took  part  in  one  or  more  of 
the  colloquies  on  the  Protestant  side ;  Eck,  Contarini,  and  others 
on  the  Catholic.  It  was  in  vain,  however.  The  differences 
were  too  vital  for  compromise. 

It  was  evident  to  Charles  V  that  the  pathway  of  conciliation 
was  hopeless,  and  that  the  Protestants  would  not  share  in  a 
general  council  unless  their  military  and  political  strength 
could  first  be  reduced.  That  union  of  Protestant  interests 
was  no  less  a  peril  to  imperial  authority  in  political  concerns. 
It  was  breaking  hopelessly  what  little  unity  was  left  in  the 
empire.  Charles,  therefore,  slowly  and  with  many  hesitations, 
developed  his  great  plan.  He  would  have  a  general  council 
in  being.  He  would  so  reduce  the  strength  of  Protestantism  by 
force  that  the  Protestants  would  accept  the  council  as  a  final 
arbiter;  and  the  council  could  then  make  such  minor  conces 
sions  as  would  be  needful  for  the  reunion  of  Christendom,  and 
correct  such  abuses  as  Protestants  and  Catholics  alike  con 
demned.  To  realize  this  plan  he  must  secure  three  preliminary 
results.  He  must,  if  possible,  divide  the  Schmalkaldic  league 
politically ;  he  must  ward  off  danger  of  French  attack ;  and  the 
ever-threatening  peril  of  Turkish  invasion  must,  for  a  time  at 
least,  be  minimized. 

The  Emperor's  purpose  of  dividing  the  Protestants  was  aided 
by  one  of  the  most  curious  episodes  of  Reformation  history. 
Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse,  the  political  genius  of  the  Schmal 
kaldic  league,  though  sacrificial  in  devotion  to  the  Protestant 


LANDGRAVE  PHILIP'S  BIGAMY  377 

cause,  was,  like  most  princes  of  that  age,  a  man  of  low  per 
sonal  morality.  Though  married  early  to  a  daughter  of  Duke 
George  .of  Saxony,  who  bore  him  seven  children,  he  had  no  af 
fection  for  her.  His  constant  adulteries  troubled  his  conscience 
to  the  extent  that,  from  1526  to  1539  he  partook  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  but  once.  He  grew  anxious  as  to  his  soul's  salvation, 
without  improving  his  conduct.  For  some  years  he  enter 
tained  the  thought  of  a  second  marriage  as  a  solution  of  his 
perplexities.  The  Old  Testament  worthies  had  practised 
polygamy.  The  New  Testament  nowhere  expressly  forbad  it. 
Why  should  not  he?  This  reasoning  was  strengthened  by 
acquaintance  with  Margarete  von  der  Sale,  an  attractive  seven 
teen-year-old  daughter  of  a  lady  of  his  sister's  little  court. 
The  mother's  consent  was  won  on  condition  that  the  Elector 
and  the  duke  of  Saxony,  and  some  others  should  be  informed 
that  it  was  to  be  a  real  marriage.  Philip's  first  wife  also  con 
sented.  Philip  was  fully  persuaded  himself  of  the  rightfulness 
of  the  step,  but  for  the  sake  of  public  opinion,  he  desired  the 
approval  of  the  Wittenberg  theologians.  He  therefore  sent 
for  Butzer  of  Strassburg,  whom  he  partly  persuaded,  partly 
frightened  with  threats  of  seeking  dispensation  from  the  Em 
peror  or  the  Pope,  into  full  support  of  his  plan.  Butzer  now 
became  Philip's  messenger  to  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  and 
to  the  Saxon  Elector,  though  the  matter  was  presented  as  an 
abstract  question,  without  mention  of  the  person  with  whom 
marriage  wras  contemplated.  On  December  10,  1539,  Luther 
and  Melanchthon  gave  their  opinion.  Polygamy  they  declared 
to  be  contrary  to  the  primal  law  of  creation,  which  Christ  had 
approved ;  but  a  special  case  required  oftentimes  treatment 
which  did  not  conform  to  the  general  rule.  If  Philip  could  not 
reform  his  life,  it  would  be  better  to  marry  as  he  proposed 
than  to  live  as  he  was  doing.  The  marriage  should,  however, 
be  kept  absolutely  a  secret,  so  that  the  second  wife  should  ap 
pear  to  be  a  concubine.  The  advice  wras  thoroughly  bad, 
though  the  Wittenberg  reformers  seem  to  have  been  moved 
by  a  sincere  desire  to  benefit  Philip's  soul. 

Philip  was  more  honorable  than  the  advice.  On  March  4, 
1540,  he  married  Margarete  in  what,  though  private,  cannot  be 
called  secret  fashion.  A  court  preacher  performed  the  cere 
mony,  and  Melanchthon,  Butzer,  and  a  representative  of  the 
Saxon  Elector  were  among  the  witnesses.  Though  an  attempt 


378      THE  EMPEROR  PREPARES  THE  BLOW 

was  made  to  keep  the  affair  private,  that  soon  proved  impos 
sible.  Luther  could  only  advise  "  a  good  strong  lie  "  ;  but  Philip 
was  manly  enough  to  declare:  "I  will  not  lie." 

The  scandal  was  great,  both  among  Protestants  and  Catholics. 
The  other  Evangelical  princes  would  not  defend  Philip's  act 
or  promise  protection  from  its  results.  The  Emperor  saw  in 
it  his  opportunity.  On  June  13,  1541,  he  secured  an  agree 
ment  from  Philip,  as  the  price  of  no  worse  consequences,  that 
the  landgrave  would  neither  personally,  nor  as  representative 
of  the  Schmalkaldic  league,  make  alliances  with  foreign  states. 
The  hopeful  negotiations  with  France,  England,  Denmark, 
and  Sweden,  which  would  have  greatly  strengthened  the  power 
of  the  Schmalkaldic  league  against  the  Emperor  had  to  be 
dropped.  Worse  than  that,  Philip  had  to  promise  not  to  aid 
the  Evangelically  inclined  Duke  Wilhelm  of  Cleves,  whose  rights 
over  Gelders  Charles  disputed.  As  the  Saxon  Elector  was  Wil- 
helm's  brother-in-law,  and  determined  to  support  him,  a  seri 
ous  division  in  the  Schmalkaldic  league  was  the  result,  which 
showed  its  disastrous  consequences  when  the  Emperor  de 
feated  Wilhelm,  in  1543,  took  Gelders  permanently  into  his  own 
possession,  and  forced  Wilhelm  to  repudiate  Lutheranism. 
This  defeat  rendered  abortive  a  hopeful  attempt  to  secure  the 
great  archbishopric  of  Cologne  for  the  Protestant  cause.1 

Fortune  favored  Charles  in  the  rest  of  his  programme.  Paul 
III  was  persuaded  to  call  the  General  Council  to  meet  in 
Trent,  a  town  then  belonging  to  the  empire,  but  practically 
Italian,  in  1542.  War  caused  a  postponement,  but  in  Decem 
ber,  1545,  it  at  last  actually  began  its  sessions,  which  were  to 
run  a  checkered  and  interrupted  course  till  1563.  By  vague, 
but  indefinite,  promises  Charles  secured,  at  the  Reichstag  in 
Speier  in  1544,  the  passive  support  of  the  Protestants,  and 
some  active  assistance,  for  the  wars  against  France  and  the 
Turks.  The  campaign  against  France  was  brief.  The  Em 
peror,  in  alliance  with  Henry  VIII  of  England,  pushed  on  nearly 
to  Paris,  when,  to  the  surprise  of  Europe  he  made  peace  with 
the  French  King,  without,  apparently,  gaining  any  of  the 
advantages  in  his  grasp.  Really,  he  had  eliminated  French 
interference  in  possible  aid  of  German  Protestantism  for  th 
immediate  future.2  The  Turks,  busy  with  a  war  in  Persia, 
and  internal  quarrels,  made  a  truce  with  the  Emperor  in 

1  Kidd,  pp.  350-354.  2  Ibid.,  p.  354. 


LUTHER'S  DEATH  379 

October,  1545.  <A1I  seemed  to  have  worked  together  for  his 
blow  against  German  Protestantism. 

It  was  while  prospects  were  thus  darkening  that  Luther  died 
on  a  visit  to  Eisleben,  the  town  in  which  he  was  born,  on 
February  18,  1546,  in  consequence  of  an  attack  of  heart-disease 
or  apoplexy.  His  last  years  had  been  far  from  happy.  His 
health  had  long  been  wretched.  The  quarrels  of  the  reformers, 
to  which  he  had  contributed  his  full  share,  distressed  him. 
Above  all,  the  failure  of  the  pure  preaching  of  justification  by 
faith  alone  greatly  to  transform  the  social,  civic,  and  political 
life  about  him  grieved  him.  He  was  comforted  by  a  happy 
home  life  and  by  full  confidence  in  his  Gospel.  The  work 
which  he  had  begun  had  passed  far  beyond  the  power  of  any 
one  man,  however  gifted,  to  control.  He  was  no  longer  needed; 
but  his  memory  must  always  be  that  of  one  of  the  most  titanic 
figures  in  the  history  of  the  church. 

Before  actually  entering  on  the  war,  Charles  succeeded  yet 
further  in  dividing  the  Protestants.  Ducal  Saxony  had  be 
come  fully  Protestant  under  Duke  Heinrich  (1539-1541),  but 
his  short  reign  had  been  followed  by  the  accession  of  his  young 
son,  Moritz  (1541-1553).  Of  great  political  abilities,  Moritz  was 
a  character  difficult  to  estimate,  because  in  an  age  dominated 
by  professed  religious  motives,  however  in  reality  oftentimes 
political,  he  cared  nothing  for  the  religious  questions  involved 
and  everything  for  his  own  political  advancement.  Though 
son-in-law  of  Philip  of  Hesse  and  cousin  of  Elector  John  Fred 
erick  of  Saxony  (1532-1547),  Moritz  had  quarrelled  with  the 
Elector  and  was  not  on  very  good  terms  with  Philip.  The 
Emperor  now,  in  June,  1546,  secured  his  support  secretly,  by 
the  promise  of  the  transfer  to  Moritz  of  his  cousin's  electoral 
dignity  in  case  of  successful  war,  and  other  important  con 
cessions.  Thus  at  length  prepared,  the  Emperor  declared 
John  Frederick  and  Philip  under  ban  for  disloyalty  to  the 
empire — Charles  desired  the  war  to  seem  political  rather  than 
religious.  The  Schmalkaldic  league  had  made  no  adequate 
preparations.  Moritz's  defection  was  a  great  blow.  Though 
at  first  the  campaign  went  well  for  the  Protestants,  electoral 
Saxony  was  crushed  at  the  battle  of  Muhlberg  on  the  Elbe,  on 
April  24,  1547,  in  which  John  Frederick  was  captured.  Philip 
saw  the  cause  was  hopeless  and  surrendered  himself  to  the 
Emperor.  Both  princes  were  imprisoned.  Moritz  received 


380  THE  INTERIMS 

the  electoral  title  and  half  his  cousin's  territories.  Politically 
Protestantism  was  crushed.  Only  a  few  northern  cities,  of 
which  Madgeburg  was  the  chief,  and  a  few  minor  northern 
princes  still  offered  resistance. 

Yet,  curiously  enough,  the  Emperor  who  had  just  crushed 
Protestantism  politically  had  never  been  on  worse  terms  with 
the  Pope.  Paul  III  had  aided  him  early  in  the  war,  but  had 
drawn  back  fearing  that  the  successful  Emperor  might  grow  too 
powerful.  Charles  wished  the  Council  of  Trent  to  move  slowly 
till  he  had  the  Protestants  ready  to  recognize  it.  He  would 
have  it  make  such  minor  concessions  as  might  then  seem  to 
allay  Protestant  prejudice.  The  Pope  wished  the  council 
to  define  Catholic  faith  quickly  and  go  home.  It  had  already, 
by  April,  1546,  made  agreement  difficult  by  defining  tradition 
to  be  a  source  of  authority  in  matters  of  faith.1  To  minimize 
imperial  influence  the  Pope  declared  the  council  adjourned  to 
Bologna  in  March,  1547.  This  transfer  the  Emperor  refused 
to  recognize  and  declined  to  be  bound  by  the  Tridentine  de 
cisions  already  framed.  Some  method  of  religious  agreement 
must  be  reached  under  which  Germany  could  live  till  the  heal 
ing  of  the  schism  which  Charles  expected  from  the  council. 
The  Emperor,  therefore,  had  an  ecclesiastical  commission 
draft  an  Interim.  This  was  essentially  Roman,  while  granting 
the  cup  to  the  laity,  permitting  clerical  marriage  and  limiting 
slightly  the  powers  of  the  Pope.  The  Catholic  princes  refused 
to  accept  it  as  applying  to  them.  The  Pope  denounced  it. 
Charles  had  to  abandon  hope  of  making  it  a  temporary  reunion 
programme,  but  secured  its  adoption  on  June  30,  1548,  by  the 
Reichstag  in  Augsburg  as  applying  to  the  ex-Protestants.  This 
Augsburg  Interim  he  now  proceeded  to  enforce  with  a  heavy 
hand.  Moritz  of  Saxony  had  done  such  service  to  the  imperial 
cause  that  a  modification,  known  as  the  Leipzig  Interim  was 
allowed  in  his  lands.  It  asserted  justification  by  faith  alone, 
but  re-established  much  of  Roman  usage  and  government.  To 
it  Melanchthon  reluctantly  consented,  regarding  its  Roman 
parts  as  "  adiaphora,"  or  non-essential  matter.  For  this  weak 
ness  he  was  bitterly  denounced  by  the  defiant  Lutherans  of 
unconquered  Magdeburg,  notably  by  Matthias  Flacius  Illy- 
ricus  (1520-1575)  and  Nikolaus  von  Amsdorf  (1483-1565). 
Flacius,  especially,  did  much  to  maintain  popular  Lutheranism 

1  Kidd,  pp.  355,  356. 


COLLAPSE  OF  THE  EMPEROR'S  EFFORTS    381 

in  this  dark  time;    but  the  bitter  quarrels  among  Lutheran 
theologians  had  begun. 

Yet,  superficially,  it  seemed  as  if  Charles  was  nearing  his  goal. 
Pope  Paul  III  died  in  1549,  and  was  succeeded  by  Julius  III 
(1550-1555),  who  proved  more  tractable  to  the  Emperor. 
The  new  Pope  summoned  the  council  to  meet  once  more  in 
Trent,  and  Protestant  theologians  actually  appeared  before  it 
in  1552.  Really,  Germany  was  profoundly  disaffected,  the 
Protestants  groaning  under  the  imperial  yoke,  and  the  Catholic 
princes  jealous  of  Charles's  increased  power  and  of  his  appar 
ently  successful  attempt  to  secure  the  imperial  succession  ulti 
mately  for  his  son,  later  to  be  famous  as  Philip  II  of  Spain. 
Moritz  of  Saxony  was  dissatisfied  that  his  father-in-law,  Philip 
of  Hesse,  was  still  imprisoned;  he  felt,  moreover,  that  he 
had  secured  all  he  could  hope  for  from  the  Emperor,  that  his 
subjects  were  Lutheran,  and  that  only  as  a  Lutheran  leader 
against  the  Emperor,  could  his  boundless  ambition  be  further 
gratified. 

The  reduction  of  defiant  Magdeburg,  in  the  name  of  the 
Emperor,  gave  Moritz  excuse  for  raising  an  army.  Agreements 
were  made  with  the  Lutheran  princes  of  northern  Germany. 
The  aid  of  King  Henry  II  of  France  (1547-1559)  was  secured  at 
the  price  of  the  surrender  to  France  of  the  German  border  cities 
of  Metz,  Toul,  and  Verdun.  Charles  knew  the  plot,  but  took 
no  adequate  steps  to  meet  it.  The  blow  came  swiftly.  Henry 
invaded  Lorraine  and  took  the  coveted  cities.  Moritz  marched 
rapidly  southward,  almost  capturing  the  Emperor,  who  es 
caped  by  flight  from  Innsbruck.  The  whole  structure  that 
Charles  had  so  laboriously  built  up  toppled  like  a  card  house, 
not  so  much  before  the  power  of  Lutheranism  as  before  the  terri 
torial  independence  of  the  princes.  On  August  2,  1552,  the 
Treaty  of  Passau  brought  the  brief  struggle  to  an  end. 

By  the  Treaty  of  Passau  the  settlement  of  the  religious  ques 
tion  was  referred  to  the  next  Reichstag.  That  body  was  not 
able  to  meet  till  three  years  later.  Princely  rivalries  distracted 
Germany.  Moritz  lost  his  life  in  warfare  against  the  lawless 
Margrave  Albrecht  of  Brandenburg  in  1553.  Charles,  con 
scientiously  unwilling  to  tolerate  Protestantism,  but  seeing 
such  toleration  inevitable,  handed  over  full  authority  to  treat 
to  his  brother  Ferdinand,  though  the  latter  was  not  to  be  chosen 
Emperor  till  1558.  The  Reichstag  met  in  Augsburg.  The 


382  THE  PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG 

Lutherans  demanded  full  rights,  and  possession  of  all  ecclesi 
astical  property,  heretofore  or  hereafter  secularized.  They 
asked  toleration  for  Lutherans  in  all  Catholic  territories,  but 
proposed  to  grant  none  to  Catholics  in  their  own.  These 
extreme  demands  were  naturally  resisted,  and  the  result  was 
a  compromise,  the  Peace  of  Augsburg,  of  September  25,  1555.1 
By  its  provisions  equal  rights  in  the  empire  were  extended  to 
Catholics  and  Lutherans — no  other  Evangelicals  were  recog 
nized.  Each  lay  prince  should  determine  which  of  the  two 
faiths  should  be  professed  in  his  territory — no  choice  was 
allowed  his  subjects — and  but  one  faith  should  be  permitted  in 
a  given  territory.  This  was  the  principle  usually  defined  as 
cujus  regio,  ejus  religio.  Regarding  ecclesiastical  territories 
and  properties,  agreement  was  reached  that  the  time  of  the 
Treaty  of  Passau  should  be  the  norm.  All  then  in  Lutheran 
possession  should  so  remain,  but  a  Catholic  spiritual  ruler 
turning  Protestant  thereafter  should  forfeit  his  position  and 
holdings,  thus  insuring  to  the  Catholics  continued  possession 
of  the  spiritual  territories  not  lost  by  1552.  This  was  the 
"ecclesiastical  reservation."  To  the  common  man,  dissatis 
fied  with  the  faith  of  the  territory  where  he  lived,  full  right  of 
unhindered  emigration  and  a  fair  sale  of  his  goods  was  allowed 
— a  great  advance  over  punishment  for  heresy,  but  his  choice 
was  only  between  Catholicism  and  Lutheranism. 

So  Lutheranism  acquired  full  legal  establishment.  Ger 
many  was  permanently  divided.  Luther's  dream  of  a  puri 
fication  of  the  whole  German  church  had  vanished,  but  so  had 
the  Catholic  conception  of  visible  unity. 

The  older  leaders  were  rapidly  passing.  Luther  had  died 
nine  years  before.  Melanchthon  was  to  live  till  1560.  Charles 
V  was  to  resign  his  possession  of  the  Netherlands  in  1555,  and 
of  Spain  a  year  later,  and  seek  retirement  at  Yuste  in  Spain  till 
death  came  to  him  in  1558. 

SECTION  VI.      THE   SCANDINAVIAN  LANDS 

Denmark,  Norway,  and  Sweden  had  been  nominally  united 
under  one  sovereign  since  the  union  of  Kalmar,  in  1397.  Since 
1460,  Schleswig-Holstein  had  also  been  under  Danish  control. 
In  none  of  these  lands  was  the  crown  powerful.  In  all,  the  great 

1  Kidd,  pp.  363,  364. 


THE  REFORMATION  IN  DENMARK          383 

ecclesiastics  were?  unpopular  as  oppressive,  and  often  foreign- 
born,  and  in  all  they  were  in  rivalry  with  the  nobility.  In  no 
portion  o£  Europe,  not  even  in  England,  was  the  Reformation 
to  be  more  thoroughly  political.  At  the  dawn  of  the  Reforma 
tion  the  Danish  throne  was  occupied  by  Christian  II  (1513- 
1523),  an  enlightened  despot  of  Renaissance  sympathies.  He 
saw  the  chief  evil  of  his  kingdom  in  the  power  of  the  nobles  and 
ecclesiastics,  and  to  limit  that  of  the  bishops  by  introducing 
the  Lutheran  movement  he  secured  a  Lutheran  preacher  in 
the  person  of  Martin  Reinhard,  in  1520,  and  an  adviser  in 
Karlstadt  for  a  brief  time  in  1521.  Partially  at  least  through 
the  latter's  counsels,  a  law  of  1521  forbad  appeals  to  Rome, 
reformed  the  monasteries,  limited  the  authority  of  the  bishops, 
and  permitted  priestly  marriage.  Opposition  prevented  its 
execution,  and  the  hostility  of  the  privileged  classes,  which 
Christian  II  had  roused  in  many  ways,  drove  him  from  his 
throne  in  1523,  and  made  his  uncle,  Frederick  I  (1523-1533), 
King  in  his  stead. 

Though  inclined  to  Lutheranism,  Frederick  was  forced  by 
the  parties  which  had  put  him  on  the  throne  to  promise  to 
respect  the  privileges  of  the  nobles  and  prevent  any  heretical 
preaching.  Yet  Lutheranism  penetrated  the  land.  In  Hans 
Tausen  (1494-1561),  a  one-time  monk  and  former  Wittenberg 
student,  it  found  a  preacher  of  popular  power  from  1524  on 
ward.  The  year  before,  a  Danish  translation  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  had  been  published.  By  1526,  King  Frederick  took  Tau 
sen  under  protection  as  his  chaplain.  The  same  year  the  King 
took  the  confirmation  of  the  appointment  of  bishops  into  his 
own  hands.  A  law  of  1527  enacted  this  into  statute,  granted 
toleration  to  Lutherans,  and  permitted  priestly  marriage.1 
These  changes  were  aided  by  the  support  of  a  large  section  of 
the  nobility  won  by  the  King's  countenance  of  their  attacks 
on  ecclesiastical  rights  and  property.  In  1530,  the  same  year 
as  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Tausen  and  his  associates  laid 
before  the  Danish  Parliament  the  "Forty-three  Copenhagen 
Articles."  No  decision  was  reached  at  the  time,  but  Lutheran 
ism  made  increasing  progress  till  Frederick's  demise  in  1533. 

The  death  of  Frederick  left  all  in  confusion.  Of  his  two  sons, 
most  of  the  nobles  favored  the  elder,  Christian  III  (1536-1559), 
a  determined  Lutheran,  while  the  bishops  supported  the 

1  Kidd,  p.  234, 


384        DENMARK,  NORWAY,  AND  ICELAND 

younger,  Johann.  A  distracting  period  of  civil  conflict  followed, 
from  which  Christian  III  emerged  the  victor  in  1536.  The 
bishops  were  imprisoned,  their  authority  abolished,  and  church 
property  confiscated  for  the  crown.1  Christian  now  called  on 
Wittenberg  for  aid.  Johann  Bugenhagen,  Luther's  associate, 
came  in  1537,  and  seven  new  Lutheran  superintendents,  named 
by  the  King,  but  retaining  the  title  "bishop,"  were  ordained 
by  the  German  reformer,  who  was  himself  a  presbyter.  The 
Danish  church  was  now  reorganized  in  fully  Lutheran  fashion.2 

Norway  was  a  separate  kingdom,  but  by  election  under  the 
Danish  King.  The  Reformation  scarcely  touched  the  land 
during  the  reign  of  Frederick  I.  In  the  struggles  that  followed 
Archbishop  Olaf  Engelbrektsson  of  Trondhjem,  the  head  of 
the  Norwegian  clergy,  led  a  temporizing  party  and  fled  the  land 
on  Christian  Ill's  success.  Norway  was  made  a  Danish 
province,  and  the  new  Danish  Lutheran  religious  constitution 
was  nominally  introduced.  Effective  preaching  and  superin 
tendence  in  Norway  was,  however,  largely  neglected  by  Chris 
tian  III  with  the  result  that  the  Reformation,  imposed  from 
above,  was  long  in  taking  effective  possession  of  popular  sym 
pathies. 

Much  the  same  story  may  be  told  of  the  far-away  Danish 
possession,  Iceland.  The  Reformation  travelled  slowly  thither. 
Bishop  Gisser  Einarsen  of  Skalholt,  educated  in  Germany 
and  of  Lutheran  sympathies,  began  a  conservative  Lutheran 
reformation  in  1540,  and  the  same  year  an  Icelandic  New  Testa 
ment  was  published.  In  1548  a  strong  Catholic  reaction,  led 
by  Bishop  Jon  Aresen  of  Holum,  attempted  to  throw  off  the 
Danish  yoke.  By  1554  the  rebellion  was  suppressed  and 
Lutheranism  forcibly  established,  though  long  with  little  popu 
lar  approval. 

The  reformation  of  Sweden  was  largely  bound  up  with  a 
national  struggle  for  independence.  Christian  II  of  Denmark 
found  bitter  resistance  to  his  efforts  to  secure  the  Swedish 
throne.  His  chief  supporter  was  Gustaf  Trolle,  archbishop  of 
Upsala.  Gustaf  procured  from  Pope  Leo  X  approval  of  the 
excommunication  of  his  opponents,  though  that  opposition  was 
purely  political.  In  1520  Christian  II  captured  Stockholm  and 
followed  his  coronation  as  King  of  Sweden  by  a  deed  of  the 
utmost  cruelty.  He  had  the  unsuspecting  nobles,  gathered 

i  Kidd  pp.  322-328.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  328-335. 


THE  REFORMATION   IX  SWEDEN  385 

for  the  ceremoAy,  executed,  nominally  as  excommunicated 
heretics.  The  Stockholm  Bath  of  Blood  roused  Sweden  to  a 
rebellion  against  Christian  II;  which  soon  found  an  energetic 
leader  in  Gustaf  Vasa.  The  Danes  were  expelled  and,  in 

1523,  Gustaf  was  chosen  King  (1523-1560). 

Meanwhile  Lutheran  doctrine  was  being  taught  by  two 
brothers,  who  had  returned  in  1519  from  studies  in  Wittenberg 
— Olaf  (1497-1552)  and  Lars  Petersson  (1499-1573),  who  la 
bored  in  Strengnas,  and  soon  won  the  archdeacon,  Lars  Anders- 
son  (1482-1552).  By  1524  King  Gustaf  was  definitely  favor 
ing  these  leaders.  Andersson  became  his  chancellor,  and  Lars 
Petersson  professor  of  theology  in  Upsala.  On  December  27, 

1524,  a  discussion   in   Upsala  between  Olaf  Petersson,   now 
preacher  in  Stockholm,  and  the  Roman  champion,  Peter  Galle, 
seemed  a  victory  for  the  reformers.1     Part  of  the  support  of 
the  King  was  probably  due  to  religious  conviction,  but  no  small 
portion  was  owing  to  the  dire  poverty  of  the  crown,  which 
Gustaf  thought  could  be  remedied  only  by  extensive  confisca 
tion  of  church  property.     In  June,  1527,  the  King  struck  the 
blow.     At  the  Diet  of  Westeras  Gustaf  demanded  and  ob 
tained  by  threat  of  resignation,  the  assignment  to  the  crown  of 
all  episcopal  or  monastic  property  which  the  King  should  deem 
not  needed  for  proper  religious  work,  the  surrender  to  the 
heirs  of  the  original  owners  of  all  lands  exempt  from  taxes 
acquired  by  the  church  since  1454,  and  "pure"  preaching  of 
"God's  Word."     Provision  was  made  for  the  reconstitution  of 
the  church  under  royal  authority.2    Though  master  of  the 
Swedish  church,  and  now  possessor  of  a  large  part  of  its  prop 
erty,  Gustaf  used  his  power  in  religion  conservatively.     Most 
of  the  old  prelates  left  the  land.     The  bishop's  office  was  re 
tained,  though  its  holders  were  now  appointed  by  the  King. 
New  bishops  were  consecrated,  with  the  old  rites,  in  1528,  at 
the  hands  of  Bishop  Peter  Magni,  of  Wresteras,  who  had  re 
ceived  his  office  in  Catholic  days,  and  through  whom  apostoli 
cal  succession  was  believed  to  be  transmitted  to  the  Swedish 
Lutheran  episcopate.     Further  reform  measures  were  taken  by 
the  synod  of  Orebro  in  1529.3    A  Swedish  service  was  issued 
in  1529,  and  the  "Swedish  Mass"  in  1531.     In  the  year  last 
named  Lars  Petersson  was  made  archbishop  of  Upsala,  though 
without  jurisdiction  over  his  fellow  bishops — that  remained  in 

1  Kidd,  pp.  155-164.        2  Ibid.,  pp.  234-236.         3  Ibid. ,  pp.  236-239. 


386  FAREL  IN  FRENCH  SWITZERLAND 

the  hands  of  the  King.  Most  of  the  lower  clergy  accepted  the 
Reformation  and  kept  their  places,  but  such  changes  by  royal 
power  were  far  from  winning  immediate  popular  approval,  and 
it  was  long  before  Sweden  became  thoroughly  Evangelical. 
Its  type  of  Lutheranism  in  doctrine  and  practice  was  strongly 
conservative.  The  reform  of  Sweden  carried  with  it  that  of 
Finland,  then  part  of  the  Swedish  monarchy.  The  Swedish 
church  was  to  pass  through  a  period  of  Romanizing  reaction, 
especially  under  the  reign  of  Gustaf's  son,  Johan  III  (1569- 
1592);  but  it  was  ended  in  1593,  when  the  synod  of  Upsala 
formally  adopted  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  the  creed  of 
Sweden. 

SECTION  VII.   REVOLT  IN  FRENCH  SWITZERLAND  AND  GENEVA 
BEFORE  CALVIN 

Zurich  was  the  strongest  power  in  northern  Switzerland, 
Bern  in  the  south.  The  latter  was  in  constant  rivalry  with 
the  dukes  of  Savoy,  especially  for  possession  of  French-speak 
ing  territories  in  the  neighborhood  of  Lake  Geneva.  The  ac 
ceptance  of  Evangelical  views  by  Bern  on  February  7,  1528 
(ante,  p.  363),  led  the  Bernese  government  to  further  the  in 
troduction  of  the  Reformation  into  these  dependent  districts 
by  encouraging  the  preaching  of  Guillaume  Farel  (1489-1565). 
Farel  was  a  native  of  Gap,  in  the  French  province  of  Dauphine. 
As  a  student  in  Paris  he  came  under  the  influence  of  the  hu 
manistic  reformer,  Jacques  Le  Fevre,  of  Etaples,  and  by  1521 
was  preaching  under  the  auspices  of  the  moderately  reformatory 
Guillaume  Briconnet,  bishop  of  Meaux.  An  orator  of  fiery  ve 
hemence,  intense  feeling,  and  stentorian  voice,  he  soon  was  so 
preaching  the  Reformation  that  he  had  to  leave  France.  By 
1524  he  was  urging  reform  in  Basel,  but  his  impetuosity  led 
to  his  expulsion. 

The  next  months  were  a  period  of  wandering,  during  which 
Farel  visited  Strassburg  and  won  Butzer's  friendship;  but,  in 
November,  1526,  his  work  in  French-speaking  Switzerland 
began  in  Aigle,  where  the  Bernese  government  defended  him, 
though  not  yet  itself  fully  committed  to  the  Reformation.1 
With  the  complete  victory  of  the  newer  views  in  Bern,  Farel's 
work  went  faster.  In  1528  Aigle,  Ollon,  and  Bex  adopted  the 

^Kidd,  pp.  477-481. 


CONDITIONS  IN  GENEVA  387 

|  X 

Reformation,  destroying  images  and  ending  the  mass.1  After 
vainly  attempting  to  invade  Lausanne,  he  began  a  stormy 
attack  in  Neuchatel,  in  November,  1529,  which  ultimately 
secured  the  victory  of  the  Reformation  there.2  Morat  fol 
lowed  in  1530;3  ^but  in  Grandson  and  Orbe,  which,  like  Morat, 
were  under  the  joint  overlordship  of  Protestant  Bern  and 
Catholic  Freiburg,  he  could  secure  only  the  toleration  of  both 
forms  of  worship.4  A  visit  by  invitation  in  September,  1532, 
to  a  synod  of  the  Waldenses  in  the  high  valleys  of  the  Cottian 
Alps  resulted  in  the  acceptance  of  the  Reformation  by  a  large 
section  of  the  body,5  and  was  followed  in  October  by  an 
attempt,  at  first  unsuccessful,  to  preach  reform  in  Geneva.6 
Everywhere  Farel  faced  opposition  with  undaunted  courage, 
sometimes  at  the  risk  of  life  and  at  the  cost  of  bodily  injury, 
but  no  one  could  be  indifferent  in  his  strenuous  presence. 

Geneva,  at  Farel's  coming,  was  in  the  struggle  of  a  revolu 
tionary  crisis.  Situated  on  a  main  trade  route  across  the 
Alps,  it  was  an  energetic  business  community,  keenly  alive  to 
its  interests  and  liberties,  of  rather  easy-going  moral  standards, 
in  spite  of  its  extensive  monasteries  and  ecclesiastical  founda 
tions.  Genevan  liberties  were  being  maintained  with  great 
difficulty  against  the  encroachments  of  the  powerful  duke  of 
Savoy.  At  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  three  powers 
shared  the  government  of  the  city  and  its  adjacent  villages — 
the  bishop;  his  vicedominus,  or  temporal  administrator;  and  the 
citizens,  who  met  annually  in  a  General  Assembly  and  chose 
four  "syndics"  and  a  treasurer.  Besides  the  General  Assem 
bly,  the  citizens  were  ruled  by  a  Little  Council  of  twenty-five, 
of  which  the  "  syndics "  of  the  year  and  of  the  year  previous 
were  members.  Questions  of  larger  policy  were  discussed  by 
a  Council  of  Sixty  appointed  by  the  Little  Council,  and  in 
1527  a  Council  of  Two  Hundred  was  added,  its  membership 
including  the  Little  Council  and  one  hundred  and  seventy-five 
others  chosen  by  that  inner  body.  The  aggressive  dukes  of 
Savoy  had  appointed  the  vicedominus  since  1290,  and  had  con 
trolled  the  bishopric  since  1444.  The  struggle  was  therefore 
one  for  freedom  by  the  citizens  against  Savoyard  interests,  rep 
resented  by  the  bishop  and  the  vicedominus. 

In  1519  the  Genevan  citizens  made  a  protective  alliance  with 

1  Kidd,  pp.  481,  482.       2  Ibid.,  pp.  483-489.         3  Ibid.,  p.  489. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  489-491.        5  Ibid.,  pp.  491,  492.         6  Ibid.,  pp.  492-494. 


388  FAREL  IX  GENEVA 

Freiburg,  but  Duke  Charles  III  of  Savoy  won  the  upper  hand, 
and  the  Genevan  patriot  Philibert  Berthelier  was  beheaded. 
Seven  years  later  Geneva  renewed  the  effort,  this  time  enter 
ing  into  alliance  with  Bern  as  well  as  Freiburg.  In  1527  the 
bishop,  Pierre  de  la  Baume,  left  the  city,  which  he  could  not 
control,  and  fully  attached  himself  to  the  Savoyard  interests. 
The  authority  of  the  mcedominus  was  repudiated.  Duke 
Charles  attacked  the  plucky  city,  but  Bern  and  Freiburg  came 
to  its  aid  in  October,  1530,  and  he  had  to  pledge  respect  to 
Genevan  liberties.1  Thus  far  there  was  little  sympathy  with 
the  Reformation  in  Geneva,  but  Bern  was  Protestant  and  was 
anxious  to  see  the  Evangelical  faith  there  established.  Placards 
criticising  papal  claims  and  presenting  reformed  doctrine  were 
posted  on  June  9,  1532,  but  Geneva's  ally,  Freiburg,  was  Cath 
olic,  and  the  Genevan  government  disowned  any  leanings 
toward  Lutheranism.2  In  October  following  Farel  came,  as 
has  been  seen,  but  could  get  no  footing  in  the  city.  Farel 
sent  his  friend  Antoine  Froment  (1508-1581)  to  Geneva,  who 
found  a  place  there  as  a  schoolmaster,  and  propagated  reformed 
doctrine  under  this  protection.  On  January  1,  1533,  Froment 
was  emboldened  to  preach  publicly,  though  the  result  was  a 
riot.  By  the  following  Easter  there  were  enough  Protestants 
to  dare  to  observe  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  in  December  Farel 
effectively  returned.  The  Genevan  government  was  in  a  diffi 
cult  position.  Its  Catholic  ally,  Freiburg,  demanded  that 
Farel  be  silenced.  Its  Protestant  ally,  Bern,  insisted  on  the 
arrest  of  Guy  Furbity,  the  chief  defender  of  the  Roman  cause.3 
Farel  and  his  friends  held  a  public  disputation,  and  on  March  1, 
1534,  seized  a  church.  Under  Bernese  pressure  the  govern 
ment  broke  the  league  with  Catholic  Freiburg.  The  bishop 
now  raised  troops  to  attack  the  city.  His  action  greatly 
strengthened  Genevan  opposition,  and  on  October  1,  1534,  the 
Little  Council  declared  the  bishopric  vacant,  though  Geneva 
was  still  far  from  predominantly  Protestant.4 

With  the  following  year  Farel,  emboldened  by  the  successful 
result  of  a  public  debate  in  May  and  June,  proceeded  to  yet 
more  positive  action.  On  July  23,  1535,  he  seized  the  church 
of  La  Madeleine,  and  on  August  8  the  cathedral  of  St.  Pierre 
itself.  An  iconoclastic  riot  swept  the  churches.  Two  days 

1  Kidd,  pp.  494-500.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  500-504. 

3  Ibid,,  pp.  504-508.  4  Ibid.,  pp.  508-512. 


FAREL  IN   GENEVA  389 

« 

later  the  mass  was  abolished,  and  speedily  thereafter  the  monks 
and  nuns  were  driven  from  the  city.  On  May  21,  1536,  the 
work  was  completed  by  the  vote  of  the  General  Assembly,  ex 
pressing  its  determination  "to  live  in  this  holy  Evangelical 
law  and  word  of  God." *•  Meanwhile  the  duke  of  Savoy  had 
been  pressing  Geneva  sorely,  but  Bern  came  at  last  powerfully 
to  its  aid  in  January,  1536.  Geneva  saw  the  peril  from  Savoy 
removed,  only  to  have  danger  arise  of  falling  under  Bernese 
control.  Yet  the  courage  of  its  citizens  was  equal  to  the  situ 
ation,  and  on  August  7,  1536,  Bern  acknowledged  Genevan 
independence.2  The  courageous  city  was  now  free,  and  had 
accepted  Protestantism,  more  for  political  than  for  religious 
reasons.  Its  religious  institutions  had  all  to  be  formed  anew. 
Farel  felt  himself  unequal  to  the  task,  and  in  July,  1536,  he 
constrained  a  young  French  acquaintance  passing  through  the 
city  to  stay  and  aid  in  the  work.  The  friend  was  John 
Calvin.3 

SECTION  VIII.      JOHN   CALVIN 

John  Calvin  was  born  in  Noyon,  a  city  of  Picardy,  about 
fifty-eight  miles  northeast  of  Paris,  on  July  10,  1509.  His 
father,  Gerard  Cauvin,  was  a  self-made  man,  who  had  risen  to 
the  posts  of  secretary  of  the  Noyon  bishopric  and  attorney  for 
its  cathedral  chapter,  and  possessed  the  friendship  of  the  pow 
erful  noble  family  of  Hangest,  which  gave  two  bishops  to 
Noyon  in  his  lifetime.  With  the  younger  members  of  this 
family  John  Calvin  was  intimately  acquainted,  and  this  friend 
ship  earned  for  him  a  familiarity  with  the  ways  of  polite  society 
such  as  few  of  the  reformers  enjoyed.  Through  the  father's 
influence  the  son  received  the  income  from  certain  ecclesiastical 
posts  in  and  near  Noyon,  the  earliest  being  assigned  him  before 
the  age  of  twelve.  He  was  never  ordained.  Thus  provided 
with  means,  Calvin  entered  the  University  of  Paris  in  August, 
1523,  enjoying  the  remarkable  instruction  in  Latin  given  by 
Mathurin  Cordier  (1479-1564),  to  whom  he  owed  the  founda 
tion  of  a  style  of  great  brilliancy.  Continuing  his  course  with 
special  emphasis,  as  was  then  the  custom,  on  philosophy  and 
dialectics,  Calvin  completed  his  undergraduate  studies  early  in 
1528.  As  a  student  he  formed  a  number  of  warm  friendships, 

1  Kidd,  pp.  512-519.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  519-521.  j*  Ibid.,  p.  544. 


390  CALVIN'S  STUDENT  LIFE 

notably  with  the  family  of  Guillaume  Cop,  the  King's  physician, 
and  an  eager  supporter  of  humanism. 

Calvin's  father  had  designed  him  for  theology,  but  by  1527 
Gerard  Cauvin  was  in  quarrel  with  the  Noyon  cathedral  chap 
ter  and  determined  that  his  son  should  study  law.  For  that 
discipline  Calvin  now  went  to  the  University  of  Orleans,  where 
Pierre  de  1'Estoile  (1480-1537)  enjoyed  great  fame  as  a  jurist, 
and  in  1529  to  the  University  of  Bourges,  to  listen  to  Andrea 
Alciati  (1493-1550).  Humanistic  interests,  also,  strongly  at 
tracted  him,  and  he  began  Greek  in  Bourges  with  the  aid  of  a 
German  teacher,  Melchior  Wolmar  (1496-1561).  He  gradu 
ated  in  law;  but  the  death  of  his  father,  in  1531,  left  Calvin 
his  own  master,  and  he  now  took  up  the  study  of  Greek  and 
Hebrew  in  the  humanist  College  de  France,  which  King 
Francis  I  had  founded  in  Paris  in  1530.  He  was  hard  at  work 
on  his  first  book — his  Commentary  on  Seneca's  Treatise  on 
Clemency — which  was  published  in  April,  1532.  It  was  a  mar 
vel  of  erudition,  and  marked  no  less  by  a  profound  sense  of 
moral  values;  but  in  it  Calvin  displayed  no  interest  in  the 
religious  questions  of  the  age.  He  was  still  simply  an  earnest, 
deeply  learned  humanist. 

Yet  it  was  not  for  want  of  opportunity  to  know  the  new  doc 
trines  that  Calvin  was  still  untouched  by  the  struggle.  Hu 
manism  had  done  its  preparatory  work  in  France  as  elsewhere. 
Its  most  conspicuous  representative  had  been  Jacques  Le  Fevre 
of  Staples  (1455?-!  536),  who  made  his  home  in  the  monastery 
of  St.-Germain  des  Pres  in  Paris,  from  1507,  for  some  years, 
and  gathered  about  him  a  notable  group  of  disciples.  Le  Fevre 
never  broke  or  wished  to  break  with  the  Roman  Church,  but 
in  1512  he  published  a  commentary  on  Paul's  epistles,  which 
denied  the  justifying  merit  of  good  works,  declared  salvation 
the  free  gift  of  God,  and  held  to  the  sole  authority  of  Scripture. 
It  was  the  study  of  a  quiet  scholar  and  aroused  no  sensation  at 
the  time.  Eleven  years  later,  in  1523,  he  put  forth  a  transla 
tion  of  the  New  Testament.  Among  his  pupils  were  Guillaume 
Briconnet  (1470-1534),  from  1516  bishop  of  Meaux;  Guillaume 
Bude  (1467-1540),  to  whose  persuasions  the  establishment  of. 
the  College  de  France  by  royal  authority  was  due;  Francois 
Vatable  (?-1547),  Calvin's  teacher  of  Hebrew  on  that  founda 
tion;  Gerard  Roussel  (1500?-1550),  Calvin's  friend,  later 
bishop  of  Oloron;  Louis  de  Berquin  (1490-1529),  to  die  at  the 


CALVIN'S  CONVERSION  391 

< 

stake  for  his  Protestantism;  and  Guillaume  Farel,  whose  fiery 
reformatory  career  has  already  been  noted.  With  these  men 
of  reformatory  impulse,  none  of  whom,  save  the  two  last  men 
tioned,  broke  with  the  Roman  Church,  many  humanists  sym 
pathized,  such  as  the  family  of  Cop,  whose  friendship  Calvin 
enjoyed  in  Paris.  They  had  powerful  support  in  King  Fran 
cis's  gifted  and  popular  sister,  Marguerite  d'Angouleme  (1492- 
1549),  from  1527  Queen  of  Navarre,  who  was  ultimately  an 
unavowed  Protestant.  Luther's  books  early  penetrated  into 
France  and  were  read  in  this  circle.  Few  of  its  members  real 
ized,  however,  the  gravity  of  the  situation  or  were  ready  to 
pay  the  full  price  of  reform;  but  there  was  no  ignorance  of 
what  the  main  questions  were  in  the  scholarly  circle  in  which 
Calvin  moved.  They  had  not  as  yet  become  important  for 
him. 

Between  the  publication  of  his  Commentary  on  Seneca's 
Treatise  on  Clemency  in  the  spring  of  1532  and  the  autumn  of 
1533  Calvin  experienced  a  "sudden  conversion."  1  Of  its  cir 
cumstances  nothing  is  certainly  known,  but  its  central  experi 
ence  was  that  God  spoke  to  him  through  the  Scriptures  and 
God's  will  must  be  obeyed.  Religion  had  henceforth  the  first 
place  in  his  thoughts.  How  far  he  even  yet  thought  of  break 
ing  with  the  Roman  Church  is  doubtful.  He  was  still  a  mem 
ber  of  the  humanistic  circle  in  Paris,  of  which  Roussel  and  his 
intimate  friend  Nicolas  Cop  were  leaders.2  On  November  1, 
1533,  Cop  delivered  an  inaugural  address  as  newly  elected  rec 
tor  of  the  University  of  Paris,  in  which  he  pleaded  for  reform, 
using  language  borrowed  from  Erasmus  and  Luther.3  That 
Calvin  wrote  the  oration  as  has  often  been  alleged,  is  improba 
ble,  but  he  undoubtedly  sympathized  with  its  sentiments.  The 
commotion  aroused  was  great,  and  King  Francis  enjoined  ac 
tion  against  the  "Lutherans."  4  Cop  and  Calvin  had  to  seek 
safety,  which  Calvin  found  in  the  home  of  a  friend,  Louis  du 
Tillet,  in  Angouleme.  Calvin's  sense  of  the  necessity  of  sepa 
ration  from  the  older  communion  was  now  rapidly  developing, 
and  forced  him  to  go  to  Noyon  to  resign  his  benefices  on  May 
4,  1534.  Here  he  was  for  a  brief  time  imprisoned.  Though 
soon  released,  France  was  too  perilous  for  him,  especially  after 
Antoine  Marcourt  posted  his  injudicious  theses  against  the 

1  Kidd,  pp.  523,  524.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  524,  525. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  525,  526.  4  Ibid.,  pp.  526-528. 


392  CALVIN'S  INSTITUTES 

mass  in  October,  1534,1  and  by  about  New  Year's  following 
Calvin  was  safely  in  Protestant  Basel. 

Marcourt's  placards  had  been  followed  by  a  sharp  renewal 
of  persecution,  one  of  the  victims  being  Calvin's  friend  the 
Parisian  merchant,  Estienne  de  la  Forge.  Francis  I  was  co 
quetting  for  the  aid  of  German  Protestants  against  Charles  V, 
and  therefore,  to  justify  French  persecutions,  issued  a  public 
letter  in  February,  1535,  charging  French  Protestantism  with 
anarchistic  aims  such  as  no  government  could  bear.  Calvin 
felt  that  he  must  defend  his  slandered  fellow  believers.  He 
therefore  rapidly  completed  a  work  begun  in  Angouleme,  and 
published  it  in  March,  1536,  as  his  Institutes,  prefacing  it  with 
a  letter  to  the  French  King.  The  letter  is  one  of  the  literary 
masterpieces  of  the  Reformation  age.  Courteous  and  digni 
fied,  it  is  a  tremendously  forceful  presentation  of  the  Protestant 
position  and  defense  of  its  holders  against  the  royal  slanders. 
No  French  Protestant  had  yet  spoken  with  such  clearness,  re 
straint,  and  power,  and  with  it  its  author  of  twenty-six  years 
stepped  at  once  into  the  leadership  of  French  Protestantism.2 

The  Institutes  themselves,  to  which  this  letter  was  prefixed, 
were,  as  published  in  1536,  far  from  the  extensive  treatise  into 
which  they  were  to  grow  in  Calvin's  final  edition  of  1559 ;  but 
they  were  already  the  most  orderly  and  systematic  popular 
presentation  of  doctrine  and  of  the  Christian  life  that  the  Ref 
ormation  produced.  Calvin's  mind  was  formulative  rather 
than  creative.  Without  Luther's  antecedent  labors  his  work 
could  not  have  been  done.  It  is  Luther's  conception  of  justifica 
tion  by  faith,  and  of  the  sacraments  as  seals  of  God's  promises 
that  he  presents.  Much  he  derived  from  Butzer,  notably  his 
emphasis  on  the  glory  of  God  as  that  for  which  all  things  are 
created,  on  election  as  a  doctrine  of  Christian  confidence,  and 
on  the  consequences  of  election  as  a  strenuous  endeavor  after 
a  life  of  conformity  to  the  will  of  God.  But  all  is  systematized 
and  clarified  with  a  skill  that  was  Calvin's  own. 

Man's  highest  knowledge,  Calvin  taught,  is  that  of  God  and 
of  himself.  Enough  comes  by  nature  to  leave  man  without 
excuse,  but  adequate  knowledge  is  given  only  in  the  Scriptures, 
which  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  in  the  heart  of  the  believing 
reader  attests  as  the  very  voice  of  God.  These  Scriptures 
teach  that  God  is  good,  and  the  source  of  all  goodness  every- 

1  Kidd,  pp.  528-532.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  532,  533. 


CALVIN'S  THEOLOGY  393 

« 

where.  Obedience  to  God's  will  is  man's  primal  duty.  As 
originally  created,  man  was  good  and  capable  of  obeying  God's 
will,  but  he  lost  goodness  and  power  alike  in  Adam's  fall,  and 
is  now,  of  himself,  absolutely  incapable  of  goodness.  Hence 
no  work  of  man's  can  have  any  merit ;  and  all  men  are  in  a 
state  of  ruin  meriting  only  damnation.  From  this  helpless 
and  hopeless  condition  some  men  are  undeservedly  rescued 
through  the  work  of  Christ.  He  paid  the  penalty  due  for  the 
sins  of  those  in  whose  behalf  He  died ;  yet  the  offer  and  recep 
tion  of  this  ransom  was  a  free  act  on  God's  part,  so  that  its 
cause  is  God's  love. 

All  that  Christ  has  wrought  is  without  avail  unless  it  becomes 
a  man's  personal  possession.  This  possession  is  effected  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  works  when,  how,  and  where  He  will, 
creating  repentance;  and  faith  which,  as  with  Luther,  is  a  vital 
union  between  the  believer  and  Christ.  This  new  life  of  faith 
is  salvation,  but  it  is  salvation  unto  righteousness.  That  the 
believer  now  does  works  pleasing  to  God  is  the  proof  that  he 
has  entered  into  vital  union  with  Christ.  "We  are  justified 
not  without,  and  yet  not  by  works."  Calvin  thus  left  room  for 
a  conception  of  "works"  as  strenuous  as  any  claimed  by  the 
Roman  Church,  though  very  different  in  relation  to  the  accom 
plishment  of  salvation.  The  standard  set  before  the  Chris 
tian  is  the  law  of  God,  as  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  not  as 
a  test  of  his  salvation  but  as  an  expression  of  that  will  of  God 
which  as  an  already  saved  man  he  will  strive  to  fulfil.  This 
emphasis  on  the  law  as  the  guide  of  Christian  life  was  peculiarly 
Calvin's  own.  It  has  made  Calvinism  always  insistent  on  char 
acter,  though  in  Calvin's  conception  man  is  saved  to  character 
rather  than  by  character.  A  prime  nourishment  of  the  Chris 
tian  life  is  by  prayer. 

Since  all  good  is  of  God,  and  man  is  unable  to  initiate  or  re 
sist  his  conversion,  it  follows  that  the  reason  some  are  saved 
and  others  are  lost  is  the  divine  choice — election  and  reproba 
tion.  For  a  reason  for  that  choice  beyond  the  will  of  God  it  is 
absurd  to  inquire,  since  God's  will  is  an  ultimate  fact.  Yet  to 
Calvin  election  was  always  primarily  a  doctrine  of  Christian 
comfort.  That  God  had  a  plan  of  salvation  for  a  man,  indi 
vidually,  was  an  unshakable  rock  of  confidence,  not  only  for 
one  convinced  of  his  own  unworthiness,  but  for  one  surrounded 
by  opposing  forces  even  if  they  were  those  of  priests  and  Kings. 


394  CALVIN'S  THEOLOGY 

It  made  a  man  a  fellow  laborer  with  God  in  the  accomplishment 
of  God's  will. 

Three  institutions  have  been  divinely  established  by  which 
the  Christian  life  is  maintained — the  church,  the  sacraments,  and 
civil  government.  In  the  last  analysis  the  church  consists  of 
"all  the  elect  of  God";  but  it  also  properly  denotes  "the  whole 
body  of  mankind  .  .  .  who  profess  to  worship  one  God  and 
Christ."  Yet  there  is  no  true  church  "where  lying  and  false 
hood  have  usurped  the  ascendancy."  The  New  Testament 
shows  as  church  officers,  pastors,  teachers,  elders,  and  deacons, 
who  enter  on  their  charges  with  the  assent  of  the  congregation 
that  they  serve.  Their  "call"  is  twofold,  the  secret  inclina 
tion  from  God  and  the  "approbation  of  the  people."  Calvin 
thus  gave  to  the  congregation  a  voice  in  the  choice  of  its  officers 
not  accorded  by  any  other  Reformation  party  except  that  of 
the  Anabaptists,  though  circumstances  at  Geneva  were  to  com 
pel  him  to  regard  that  voice  there  as  expressed  by  the  city 
government.  Similarly  Calvin  claimed  for  the  church  full  and 
independent  jurisdiction  in  discipline  up  to  the  point  of  ex 
communication.  Further  it  could  not  go ;  but  it  was  a  reten 
tion  of  a  freedom  which  all  the  other  leaders  of  the  Reformation 
had  abandoned  to  state  supervision.  Civil  government  has, 
however,  the  divinely  appointed  task  of  fostering  the  church, 
protecting  it  from  false  doctrine,  and  punishing  offenders  for 
whose  crimes  excommunication  is  insufficient.  It  was  essen 
tially  the  mediaeval  theory  of  the  relations  of  church  and  state. 

Calvin  recognized  only  two  sacraments — baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Regarding  the  burning  question  of  Christ's 
presence  in  the  Supper,  he  stood,  like  Butzer,  part  way  be 
tween  Luther  and  Zwingli,  nearer  the  Swiss  reformer  in  form, 
and  to  the  German  in  spirit.  With  Zwingli  he  denied  any 
physical  presence  of  Christ ;  yet  he  asserts  in  the  clearest  terms 
a  real,  though  spiritual  presence  received  by  faith.  "Christ, 
out  of  the  substance  of  His  flesh,  breathes  life  into  our  souls, 
nay,  diffuses  His  own  life  into  us,  though  the  real  flesh  of  Christ 
does  not  enter  us."  1 

On  the  publication  of  the  Institutes  in  the  spring  of  1536, 
Calvin  made  a  brief  visit  to  the  court  of  Ferrara,  in  Italy, 
doubtless  intending  to  advance  the  Evangelical  cause  with  his 
liberal-minded  and  hospitable  fellow  countrywoman,  the  Duch- 

1  The  quotations  in  these  paragraphs  are  from  the  edition  of  1559. 


CALVIN'S  EARLY  WORK  IN  GENEVA        395 

< 

ess  Renee.  His  stay  was  short,  and  a  brief  visit  to  France 
followed;  to  settle  his  business  affairs  and  to  proceed  to  Basel 
or  Strassburg  with  his  brother  and  sister.  The  perils  of  war 
took  him  to  Geneva  in  July,  1536,  and  there  Farel's  fiery  ex 
hortation,  as  has  been  seen  (ante,  p.  389),  induced  him  to  remain. 

Calvin's  work  in  Geneva  began  very  modestly.  He  was  a 
lecturer  on  the  Bible,  and  was  not  appointed  one  of  the  preach 
ers  till  a  year  later.  Over  Farel,  however,  he  exercised  great 
influence.  Their  first  joint  work  was  to  aid  the  Bernese  min 
isters  and  civil  authorities  in  the  effective  establishment  of 
the  Reformation  throughout  Vaud  and  in  Lausanne,  which  had 
just  come  under  Bernese  control.1  In  Lausanne,  Pierre  Viret 
(1511-1571)  was  appointed  pastor,  an  office  which  he  was  to 
hold  till  1559.  With  him  Calvin  was  to  enjoy  close  friendship. 
Calvin  and  Farel  now  undertook  to  accomplish  three  results 
in  Geneva  itself.  In  January,  1537,  they  laid  before  the  Little 
Council  a  series  of  recommendations  from  Calvin's  pen.2 
These  proposed  monthly  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
For  better  preparation,  the  city  government  should  appoint 
"certain  persons"  for  each  quarter  of  the  city,  who,  in  connec 
tion  with  the  ministers,  might  report  the  unworthy  to  the  church 
for  discipline  up  to  excommunication.  This  was  Calvin's  first 
attempt  to  make  Geneva  a  model  community,  and  likewise  to 
assert  the  independence  of  the  church  in  its  own  sphere.  A 
second  effort  was  the  adoption  of  a  catechism  composed  by 
Calvin,  and  a  third  the  imposition  on  each  citizen  of  a  creed, 
probably  written  by  Farel.3  These  recommendations  the 
Little  Council  adopted  with  considerable  modification. 

The  success  of  Calvin's  work  was  soon  threatened.  He  and 
Farel  were  unjustly  charged  with  Arianism  by  Pierre  Caroli, 
then  of  Lausanne.  They  vindicated  their  orthodoxy  easily, 
but  not  till  great  publicity  had  been  given  to  the  matter.4  In 
Geneva  itself  the  new  discipline  and  the  demand  for  individual 
assent  to  the  new  creed  soon  aroused  bitter  opposition.  This 
was  strong  enough  to  secure  a  vote  of  the  Council  of  Two  Hun 
dred,  in  January,  1538,  that  the  Supper  should  be  refused  to 
no  one,  thus  destroying  Calvin's  system  of  discipline.5  The 
next  month  the  opposition  won  the  city  election,  and  deter 
mined  to  force  the  issue.  The  Bernese  liturgy  differed  some- 

1  Kidd,  pp.  548-558.        2  Ibid.,  pp.  560-567.        3  Ibid.,  pp.  568-572. 
4  Ibid.,  pp.  573-575.         5  Ibid.,  p.  577. 


396  CALVIX  IX  STRASSBURG 

what  from  that  now  established  in  Geneva.  Bern  had  long 
wished  it  adopted  in  Geneva,  and  the  opposition  now  secured 
a  vote  that  it  be  used.  Calvin  and  Farel  regarded  the  differ 
ences  in  Bernese  and  Genevan  usage  as  of  slight  importance, 
but  an  imposition  by  civil  authority,  without  consulting  the 
ministers,  they  viewed  as  robbing  the  church  of  all  freedom. 
Calvin  and  Farel  refused  compliance,  and  on  April  23,  1538, 
were  banished.1  Their  work  in  Geneva  seemed  to  have  ended 
in  total  failure. 

After  a  vain  attempt  at  restoration  to  Geneva  by  the  inter 
vention  of  Swiss  Protestant  authorities,  Farel  found  a  pastorate 
in  Xeuchatel,  which  was  thenceforth  to  be  his  home;  and  Cal 
vin,  at  Butzer's  invitation,  a  refuge  in  Strassburg.  The  three 
years  there  spent  were  in  many  ways  the  happiest  in  Calvin's 
life.  There  he  was  pastor  of  a  church  of  French  refugees  and 
lecturer  on  theology.  There  he  was  honored  by  the  city  and 
made  one  of  its  representatives  in  Charles  V's  reunion  debates 
between  Protestants  and  Catholics  (ante,  p.  376),  gaining 
thereby  the  friendship  of  Melanchthon  and  other  German  re 
formers.  There  he  married,  in  1540,  the  wife  who  was  to  be 
his  faithful  companion  till  her  death  in  1549.  There  he  found 
time  for  writing,  not  merely  an  enlarged  edition  of  the  Insti 
tutes,  and  his  Commentary  on  Romans,  the  beginning  of  a  series 
that  put  him  in  the  front  rank  of  exegetes  among  the  reformers, 
but  his  brilliant  Reply  to  Sadoleto,  which  was  justly  regarded 
as  the  ablest  of  vindications  of  Protestantism  generally.2 

Meanwhile  a  political  revolution  occurred  in  Geneva  for 
which  Calvin  was  in  no  way  responsible.  The  party  there 
which  had  secured  his  banishment  made  a  disastrous  treaty 
with  Bern  in  1539,  which  resulted  in  its  overthrow  the  next 
year  and  the  condemnation  of  the  negotiators  as  traitors. 
The  party  friendly  to  Calvin  was  once  more  in  power,  and  its 
leaders  sought  his  return.  He  was  with  difficulty  persuaded, 
but  in  1541  was  once  more  in  Geneva,  practically  on  his  own 
terms.3 

Calvin  promptly  secured  the  adoption  of  his  new  ecclesias 
tical  constitution,  the  Ordonnances,  now  far  more  definite  than 
the  recommendations  accepted  in  1537.  In  spite  of  his  success 
ful  return,  however,  he  could  not  have  them  quite  all  that  he 

1  Kidd,  pp.  577-580.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  583-586. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  586-589. 


CALVIN'S  GENEVAN  ORGANIZATION         397 

wished.  The  Ordormanccft1  declare  that  Christ  has  instituted 
in  His  church  the  four  offices  of  pastor,  teacher,  elder,  and 
deacon,  and  define  the  duties  of  each.  Pastors  were  to  meet 
weekly  for  public  discussion,  examination  of  ministerial  can 
didates,  and  exegesis,  in  what  was  popularly  known  as  the 
Congregation.  The  teacher  was  to  be  the  head  of  the  Geneva 
school  system,  which  Calvin  regarded  as  an  essential  factor  in 
the  religious  training  of  the  city.  To  the  deacons  were  assigned 
the  care  of  the  poor  and  the  supervision  of  the  hospital.  The 
elders  were  the  heart  of  Calvin's  system.  They  were  laymen, 
chosen  by  the  Little  Council,  two  from  itself,  four  from  the 
Sixty,  and  six  from  the  Two  Hundred,  and  under  the  presi 
dency  of  one  of  the  syndics.  They,  together  with  the  minis 
ters,  made  up  the  Consistoire,  meeting  every  Thursday,  and 
charged  with  ecclesiastical  discipline.  To  excommunication 
they  could  go;  beyond  that,  if  the  offense  demanded,  they 
were  to  refer  the  case  to  the  civil  authorities.  No  right  seemed 
to  Calvin  so  vital  to  the  independence  of  the  church  as  this  of 
excommunication,  and  for  none  was  he  compelled  so  to  struggle 
till  its  final  establishment  in  1555. 2 

Besides  this  task,  Calvin  prepared  a  new  and  much  more 
effective  catechism,3  and  introduced  a  liturgy,  based  on  that 
of  his  French  congregation  in  Strassburg,  which,  in  turn,  was 
essentially  a  translation  of  that  generally  in  use  in  that  German 
city.  In  formulating  it  for  Genevan  use  Calvin  made  a  good 
many  modifications  to  meet  Genevan  customs  or  prejudices.4 
It  combined  a  happy  union  of  fixed  and  free  prayer.  Calvin 
had  none  of  the  hostility  against  fixed  forms  which  his  spiritual 
descendants  in  Great  Britain  and  America  afterward  mani 
fested.  It  also  gave  full  place  to  singing. 

Under  Calvin's  guidance,  and  he  held  no  other  office  than  that 
of  one  of  the  ministers  of  the  city,  much  was  done  for  educa 
tion  and  for  improved  trade;  but  all  Genevan  life  was  under  the 
constant  and  minute  supervision  of  the  Consistoire.  Calvin 
would  make  Geneva  a  model  of  a  perfected  Christian  com 
munity.  Its  strenuous  Evangelicalism  attracted  refugees  in 
large  numbers,  many  of  them  men  of  position,  learning,  and 
wealth,  principally  from  France,  but  also  from  Italy,  the 
Netherlands,  Scotland,  and  England.  These  soon  became  a 

1  Kidd,  pp.  589-603.  2  Ibid.,  p.  647. 

3  Extracts,  Kidd,  pp.  604-615.         4  Kidd,  pp.  615-628. 


398  CALVIN'S  CONFLICTS 

very  important  factor  in  Genevan  life.  Calvin  himself,  and  all 
his  associated  ministers,  were  foreigners.  Opposition  to  his 
strenuous  rule  appeared  practically  from  the  first,  but,  by  1548, 
had  grown  very  serious.  It  was  made  up  of  two  elements, 
those  to  whom  any  discipline  would  have  been  irksome;  and 
much  more  formidable,  those  of  old  Genevan  families  who  felt 
that  Calvin,  his  fellow  ministers,  and  the  refugees  were  for 
eigners  who  were  imposing  a  foreign  yoke  on  a  city  of  heroic 
traditions  of  independence.  That  there  was  a  party  of  relig 
ious  Libertins  in  Geneva,  is  a  baseless  tradition. 

Calvin's  severest  struggle  was  from  1548  to  1555,  from  the 
time  that  some  of  the  older  inhabitants  began  to  fear  that 
they  would  be  swamped  politically  by  the  refugees,  till  the 
refugees,  almost  all  of  whom  were  eager  supporters  of  Calvin, 
achieved  what  had  been  dreaded,  and  made  Calvin's  position 
unshakable.  Constantly  increasing  in  fame  outside  of  Geneva, 
Calvin  stood  in  imminent  peril,  throughout  this  period,  of  hav 
ing  his  Genevan  work  overthrown. 

The  cases  of  conflict  were  many,  but  two  stand  out  with 
special  prominence.  The  first  was  that  caused  by  Jerome 
Hermes  Bolsec,  a  former  monk  of  Paris,  now  a  Protestant 
physician  in  Veigy,  near  Geneva.  In  the  Congregation  Bolsec 
charged  Calvin  with  error  in  asserting  predestination.  That 
was  to  attack  the  very  foundations  of  Calvin's  authority, 
for  his  sole  hold  on  Geneva  was  as  an  interpreter  of  the  Scrip 
tures.  If  he  was  not  right  in  all,  he  was  thoroughly  discredited. 
Calvin  took  Bolsec's  charges  before  the  city  government  in 
October,  1551.  The  result  was  Bolsec's  trial.  The  opinions 
of  other  Swiss  governments  were  asked,  and  it  was  evident 
that  they  attached  no  such  weight  to  predestination  as  did  Cal 
vin.  It  was  with  difficulty  that  Calvin  procured  Bolsec's 
banishment,  and  the  episode  led  him  to  a  more  strenuous  in 
sistence  of  the  vital  importance  of  predestination  as  a  Chris 
tian  truth  than  even  heretofore.1  As  for  Bolsec,  he  ultimately 
returned  to  the  Roman  communion  and  avenged  himself  on 
Calvin's  memory  by  a  grossly  slanderous  biography. 

Calvin  was  thus  holding  his  power  with  difficulty,  when  in 
February,  1553,  the  elections,  which  for  some  years  had  been 
fairly  balanced,  turned  decidedly  in  favor  of  his  opponents. 
His  fall  seemed  inevitable,  when  he  was  rescued  and  put  on 

1  Kidd,  pp.  641-645. 


SERVETUS  399 

l 

the  path  to  ultimate  victory  by  the  arrival  in  Geneva  of  Miguel 
Servetus,  whose  case  forms  the  second  of  those  here  men 
tioned.  Servetus  was  a  Spaniard,  almost  the  same  age  as 
Calvin,  and  undoubtedly  a  man  of  great,  though  erratic,  genius. 
In  1531  he  published  his  De  Trinitatis  Erroribus.  Compelled 
to  conceal  his  identity,  he  studied  medicine  under  the  name  of 
Villeneuve,  being  the  real  discoverer  of  the  pulmonary  cir 
culation  of  the  blood.  He  settled  in  Vienne  in  France,  where  he 
developed  a  large  practice.  He  was  working  secretly  on  his 
Restitution  of  Christianity,  which  he  published  early  in  1553. 
To  his  thinking,  the  Nicene  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  Chal- 
cedonian  Christology,  and  infant  baptism  were  the  chief 
sources  of  the  corruption  of  the  church.  As  early  as  1545,  he 
had  begun  an  exasperating  correspondence  with  Calvin,  whose 
Institutes  he  contemptuously  criticised. 

Servetus's  identity  and  authorship  were  unmasked  to  the 
Roman  ecclesiastical  authorities  in  Lyons,  by  Calvin's  friend, 
Guillaume  Trie,  who,  a  little  later,  supplied  further  proof 
obtained  from  Calvin  himself.  He  was  condemned  to  be 
burned;  though,  before  sentence,  he  had  escaped  from  prison 
in  Vienne.  For  reasons  hard  to  understand  he  made  his  way 
to  Geneva,  and  was  there  arrested  in  August,  1553.  His  con 
demnation  now  became  a  test  of  strength  between  Calvin  and 
the  opposition,  which  did  not  dare  come  out  openly  in  defense 
of  so  notorious  a  heretic,  but  made  Calvin  all  the  difficulties 
that  it  could.  As  for  Servetus,  he  had  much  hope  for  a  favor 
able  issue,  and  demanded  that  Calvin  be  exiled  and  Calvin's 
goods  adjudged  to  him.  The  trial  ended  in  Servetus's  con 
viction  and  death  by  fire  on  October  27,  1553.  Though  a  few 
voices  of  protest  were  raised,  notably  that  of  Sebastien  Castellio 
(1515-1563)  of  Basel,  most  men  agreed  with  Melanchthon  that 
it  was  "  justly  done."  However  odious  the  trial  and  its  tragic 
end  may  seem  in  retrospect,  for  Calvin  it  was  a  great  victory. 
It  freed  the  Swiss  churches  from  any  imputation  of  unortho- 
doxy  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  while  Calvin's  opponents 
had  ruined  themselves  by  making  difficult  the  punishment  of 
one  whom  the  general  sentiment  of  that  age  condemned. ' 

Calvin's  improved  status  was  soon  apparent.  The  elections 
of  1554  were  decidedly  in  his  favor,  those  of  1555  yet  more  so. 
In  January,  1555,  he  secured  permanent  recognition  of  the 
right  of  the  Consistoire  to  proceed  to  excommunication  with- 


400        CALVIN'S  SUCCESS  AND  INFLUENCE 

out  governmental  interference.1  The  now  largely  Calvinist 
government  proceeded,  the  same  year,  to  make  its  position 
secure  by  admitting  a  considerable  number  of  the  refugees  to 
the  franchise.  A  slight  riot  on  the  evening  of  May  16,  1555, 
begun  by  Calvin's  opponents,  was  seized  as  the  occasion  of 
executing  and  banishing  their  leaders  as  traitors.  Henceforth 
the  party  favorable  to  Calvin  was  undisputed  master  of  Geneva. 
Bern  was  still  hostile,  but  the  common  danger  to  Bern  and 
Geneva  when  Emmanuel  Philibert,  duke  of  Savoy  and  victor 
for  Spain  over  the  French  at  St.-Quentin  in  1557,  was  enabled 
to  lay  claim  to  his  duchy,  then  mostly  in  possession  of  the 
French,  brought  about  a  "perpetual  alliance,"  in  January,  1558, 
in  which  Geneva  stood  for  the  first  time  on  a  full  equality  with 
its  ally,  Bern.  Thus  relieved  of  the  most  pressing  perils,  at 
home  and  abroad,  Calvin  crowned  his  Genevan  work  by  the 
foundation  in  1559  of  the  "Genevan  Academy" — in  reality, 
as  it  has  long  since  become,  the  University  of  Geneva.2  It  be 
came  immediately  the  greatest  centre  of  theological  instruction 
in  the  Reformed  communions,  as  distinguished  from  the 
Lutheran,  and  the  great  seminary  from  which  ministers  in 
numbers  were  sent  forth  not  only  to  France  but  in  less  de 
gree  to  the  Netherlands,  England,  Scotland,  Germany,  and 
Italy. 

Calvin's  influence  extended  far  b<?yopd  Geneva.  Thanks  to 
his  Institutes,  his  pattern  of  churcfcu^e'rfiment  in  Geneva,  his 
academy,  his  commentaries,  and  his  constant  correspondence, 
he  moulded  the  thought  and  inspired  the  ideals  of  the  Protes 
tantism  of  France,  the  Netherlands,  Scotland,  and  the  English 
Puritans.  His  influence  penetrated  Poland  and  Hungary,  and 
before  his  death  Calvinism  was  taking  root  in  southwestern 
Germany  itself.  Men  thought  his  thoughts  after  him.  His 
was  the  only  system  that  the  Reformation  produced  that  could 
organize  itself  powerfully  in  the  face  of  governmental  hostility, 
as  in  France  and  England.  It  trained  strong  men,  confident 
in  their  election  to  be  fellow  workers  with  God  in  the  accom 
plishment  of  His  will,  courageous  to  do  battle,  insistent  on  char 
acter,  and  confident  that  God  has  given  in  the  Scriptures  the 
guide  of  all  right  human  conduct  and  proper  worship.  The 
spiritual  disciples  of  Calvin,  in  most  various  lands,  bore  one  com 
mon  stamp.  This  was  Calvin's  work,  a  mastery  of  mind  over 

1  Kidd,  p.  647.  2  Ibid.,  p.  648. 


ENGLAND  ON  THE  EVE  OF  THE  REVOLT  401 
I 

mind,  and  certainly  by  the  time  of  his  death  in  Geneva,  on  May 
27,  1564*  he  deserved  the  description  of  "the  only  international 
reformer."  l 

Calvin  left  no  successor  of  equal  stature.  The  work  had 
grown  too  large  for  any  one  man  to  direct.  But  in  Geneva, 
and  to  a  considerable  extent  in  his  labors  beyond  its  borders,  his 
mantle  fell  on  the  worthy  shoulders  of  Theodore  Beza  (1519- 
1605),  a  man  of  more  conciliatory  spirit  and  gentler  ways,  but 
devoted  to  the  same  ideals. 

SECTION   IX.      THE  ENGLISH  REVOLT 

In  England  the  stronger  Kings  had  long  practically  controlled 
episcopal  appointments,  and  such  as  were  made  directly  by  the 
Pope  were  usually  on  some  basis  of  agreement  with  the  sover 
eign.  The  chief  political  posts  were  filled  by  churchmen,  partly 
because  few  laymen  could  vie  with  them  in  learning  or  experi 
ence,  and  partly  because  the  emoluments  of  high  churchly 
office  made  such  appointments  inexpensive  for  the  royal 
treasury.  Naturally,  in  such  appointments,  ability  and  use 
fulness  in  the  royal  service  were  apt  to  be  more  valued  than 
spiritual  fitness.  Such  was  the  state  of  affairs  when  Henry 
VIII  (1509-1547)  began  his  reign.  Some  Wyclifianism  existed 
in  humble  circles  and  occasionally  came  under  churchly  censure. 
Humanism  had  entereu  T  ,land  and  had  found  supporters  in 
limited  groups  among  the  educated.  John  Colet  (1467  ?-1519), 
ultimately  dean  of  St.  Paul's  in  London,  had  lectured  in  Oxford 
on  Paul's  epistles,  in  full  humanistic  spirit,  as  early  as  1496, 
and  refounded  St.  Paul's  school  in  1512.  Erasmus  had  taught 
in  Cambridge  from  1511  to  1514,  having  first  visited  England 
in  1499,  and  he  made  many  friends  there.  One  of  these  was 
the  excellent  John  Fisher  (1469?-1535),  bishop  of  Rochester, 
and  another,  the  famous  Sir  Thomas  More  (1478-1535).  Yet 
there  was  little  in  the  situation  at  the  beginning  of  Henry  VIII's 
reign  that  made  a  change  in  the  existing  ecclesiastical  situation 
seem  possible.  One  trait  of  the  national  life  was  conspicuous, 
however,  which  was  to  be  the  basis  of  Henry  VIII's  support. 
That  was  a  strongly  developed  national  consciousness — a 
feeling  of  England  for  Englishmen — that  was  easily  aroused  to 
opposition  to  all  foreign  encroachment  from  whatever  source. 

1  Kidd,  p.  651. 


402    HENRY  VIII  WISHES  MARRIAGE  ANNULLED 

Henry  VIII,  who  has  been  well  described  as  a  "tyrant  under 
legal  forms,"  was  a  man  of  remarkable  intellectual  abilities  and 
executive  force,  well  read  and  always  interested  in  scholastic 
theology,  sympathetic  with  humanism,  popular  with  the  mass 
of  the  people,  but  egotistic,  obstinate,  and  self-seeking.  In  the 
early  part  of  his  reign  he  had  the  support  of  Thomas  Wolsey 
(1475-1530),  who  became  a  privy  councillor  in  1511,  and  in 
1515  was  made  lord  chancellor  by  the  King  and  cardinal  by 
Pope  Leo  X.  Thenceforth  he  was  Henry's  right  hand.  When 
Luther's  writings  were  received  in  England  their  use  was  for 
bidden,  and  Henry  VIII  published  his  Assertion  of  the  Seven 
Sacraments  against  Luther  in  1521,  which  won  from  Leo  X  the 
title  "Defender  of  the  Faith."  At  the  beginning  of  his  reign 
Henry  had  married  Catherine  of  Aragon,  daughter  of  Ferdinand 
and  Isabella  of  Spain,  and  widow,  though  the  marriage  had  been 
one  in  name  only,  of  his  older  brother,  Arthur.  A  dispensation 
authorizing  this  marriage  with  a  deceased  brother's  wife  had 
been  granted  by  Julius  II  in  1503.  Six  children  were  born  of 
this  union,  but  only  one,  Mary,  survived  infancy.  By  1527,  if 
not  earlier,  Henry  was  alleging  religious  scruples  as  to  the  valid 
ity  of  his  marriage.  His  reasons  were  not  wholly  sensual.  Had 
they  been,  he  might  well  have  been  content  with  his  mistresses. 
A  woman  had  never  ruled  England.  The  Wars  of  the  Roses 
had  ended  as  recently  as  1485.  The  absence  of  a  male  heir, 
should  Henry  die,  would  probably  causa  civil  war.  It  was  not 
likely  that  Catherine  would  have  further  children.  He  wanted 
another  wife,  and  a  male  heir. 

Wolsey  was  induced  to  favor  the  project,  partly  from  his  sub 
servience  to  the  King,  and  partly  because,  if  the  marriage  with 
Catherine  should  be  declared  invalid,  he  hoped  Henry  would 
marry  the  French  princess,  Renee,  afterward  duchess  of  Fer- 
rara,  and  thus  be  drawn  more  firmly  from  the  Spanish  to 
the  French  side  in  continental  politics.  Henry,  however,  had 
other  plans.  He  had  fallen  in  love  with  Anne  Boleyn,  a  lady 
of  his  court.  A  complicated  negotiation  followed,  in  which 
Wolsey  did  his  best  to  please  Henry,  while  Catherine  behaved 
with  dignity  and  firmness,  and  was  treated  with  cruelty.  Prob 
ably  an  annulment  of  the  marriage  might  have  been  secured 
from  Pope  Clement  VII  had  it  not  been  for  the  course  of  Euro 
pean  politics,  which  left  the  Emperor  Charles  V  victor  in  war, 
and  forced  the  Pope  into  submission  to  the  imperial  policy 


HENI^Y  VIII  BREAKS  WITH  ROME          403 

(ante,  p.  358).  Charles  was  determined  that  his  aunt,  Cathe 
rine,  should  not  be  set  aside.  Henry,  angered  at  Wolsey's 
want  of  success,  turned  on  him,  and  the  great  cardinal  died, 
November  30,  1530,  on  his  way  to  be  tried  for  treason. 

Henry  now  thought  well  of  a  suggestion  of  Thomas  Cranmer 
(1489-1556),  then  teaching  -in  Cambridge  University,  that  the 
opinions  of  universities  be  sought.  This  was  done  in  1530, 
with  only  partial  success;  but  a  friendship  was  begun  between 
the  King  and  Cranmer  that  was  to  have  momentous  con 
sequences. 

Favorable  action  from  the  Pope  being  now  out  of  the  ques 
tion,  Henry  determined  to  rely  on  the  national  feeling  of  hos 
tility  to  foreign  rule,  and  his  own  despotic  skill,  either  to  break 
with  the  papacy  altogether,  or  to  so  threaten  papal  control 
as  to  secure  his  wishes.  In  January,  1531,  he  charged  the  whole 
body  of  clergy  with  breach  of  the  old  statute  of  Prcemunire  of 
1353  for  having  recognized  Wolsey's  authority  as  papal  legate 
— an  authority  which  Henry  himself  had  recognized  and  ap 
proved.  He  not  only  extorted  a  great  sum  as  the  price  of  par 
don,  but  the  declaration  by  the  convocations  in  which  the 
clergy  met,  that  in  respect  to  the  Church  of  England,  he  was 
"single  and  supreme  Lord,  and,  as  far  as  the  law  of  Christ 
allows,  even  supreme  head."  Early  in  1532,  under  severe 
royal  pressure,  Parliament  passed  an  act  forbidding  the  pay 
ment  of  all  annates  to  Rome  save  with  the  King's  consent.1 
In  May  following,  the  clergy  in  convocation  agreed  reluctantly, 
not  only  to  make  no  new  ecclesiastical  laws  without  the  King's 
permission,  but  to  submit  all  existing  statutes  to  a  commission 
appointed  by  the  King.2  About  January  25,  1533,  Henry 
secretly  married  Anne  Boleyn.  In  February  Parliament  for 
bad  all  appeals  to  Rome.3  Henry  used  the  conditional  prohibi 
tion  of  annates  to  procure  from  Pope  Clement  VII  confirmation 
of  his  appointment  of  Thomas  Cranmer  as  archbishop  of  Can 
terbury.  Cranmer  was  consecrated  on  March  30;  on  May  23, 
Cranmer  held  court  and  formally  adjudged  Henry's  marriage 
to  Catherine  null  and  void.  On  September  7,  Anne  Boleyn 
bore  a  daughter,  the  princess  Elizabeth,  later  to  be  Queen. 

While  these  events  were  occurring  Clement  VII  had  prepared 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  Documents  Illustrative  of  English  Church  History,  pp. 
178-186. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  176-178.  3  Ibid.,  pp.  187-195. 


404  THE  ROYAL  SUPREMACY 

a  bull  threatening  excommunication  against  Henry  on  July  11, 
1533.  Henry's  answer  was  a  series  of  statutes  obtained  from 
Parliament  in  1534,  by  which  all  payments  to  the  Pope  were 
forbidden,  all  bishops  were  to  be  elected  on  the  King's  nomina 
tion,  and  all  oaths  of  papal  obedience,  Roman  licenses,  and 
other  recognitions  of  papal  authority  done  away.1  The  two 
convocations  now  formally  abjured  papal  supremacy.2  In 
November,  1534,  Parliament  passed  the  famous  Supremacy 
Act,  by  which  Henry  and  his  successors  were  declared  "the 
only  supreme  head  in  earth  of  the  Church  of  England,"  without 
qualifying  clauses,  and  with  full  power  to  redress  " heresies" 
and  "abuses."3  This  was  not  understood  by  the  King  or 
its  authors  as  giving  spiritual  rights,  such  as  ordination,  the 
administration  of  the  sacraments  and  the  like,  but  in  all  else 
it  practically  put  the  King  in  the  place  of  the  Pope.  The 
breach  with  Rome  was  complete.  Nor  were  these  statutes  in 
any  way  meaningless.  In  May,  1535,  a  number  of  monks  of 
one  of  the  most  respected  orders  in  England,  that  of  the  Car 
thusians,  or  Charterhouse,  were  executed  under  circumstances 
of  peculiar  barbarity,  for  denying  the  King's  supremacy.  In 
June  and  July  the  two  most  widely  known  subjects  of  the 
King,  Bishop  John  Fisher  and  Sir  Thomas  More,  distinguished 
alike  for  character  and  scholarship,  were  beheaded  for  the 
same  offense. 

For  his  work,  Henry  had  found  a  new  agent  in  Thomas 
Cromwell  (1485?-!  540),  a  man  of  very  humble  origin,  a  sol 
dier,  merchant,  and  money-lender  by  turns,  of  whom  Wolsey 
had  made  much  use  as  business  and  parliamentary  agent.  By 
1531  Cromwell  was  of  the  privy  council;  in  1534  master  of  the 
rolls;  and  in  1536,  layman  that  he  was,  viceregent  for  the  King 
in  ecclesiastical  affairs.  Henry  was  hungry  for  ecclesiastical 
property,  both  to  maintain  his  lavish  court  and  to  create  and 
reward  adherents — the  Reformation  everywhere  was  marked 
by  these  confiscations — and  late  in  1534  he  commissioned 
Cromwell  to  have  the  monasteries  visited  and  report  on  their 
condition.  The  alleged  facts,  the  truth  or  falsity  of  which  is 
still  a  disputed  matter,  were  laid  before  Parliament,  which  in 
February,  1536,  adjudged  to  the  King,  "his  heirs  and  assigns 
forever,  to  do  and  use  therewith  his  and  their  own  wills,"  all 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  201-232.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  251,  252. 

pp.  243,  244. 


RISE  OF  A  PROTESTANT  PARTY  405 

I 

monastic  establishments  having  an  income  of  less  than  two 
hundred;  pounds  annually.1  The  number  thus  sequestered 
was  three  hundred  and  seventy-six. 

Meanwhile  Henry  had  been  in  part  relieved  from  the  danger 
of  foreign  intervention  by  the  death  in  January,  1536,  of 
Catherine  of  Aragon.  He  seems  now  to  have  wished  to  con 
tract  a  marriage  not  open  to  the  criticisms  of  that  with  Anne 
Boleyn,  of  whom  he  was,  moreover,  tired.  She  was  accord 
ingly  charged  with  adultery,  in  May,  1536,  whether  rightly 
or  wrongly  is  impossible  to  decide,  though  the  accusation 
seems  suspicious,  and  on  the  19th  was  beheaded.  Two  days  be 
fore  Cranmer  had  pronounced  her  marriage  to  Henry  null  and 
void.  Eleven  days  later  Henry  married  Jane  Seymour,  who 
bore  him  a  son,  Edward,  on  October  12,  1537,  and  died  twelve 
days  thereafter.  Henry's  deeds,  especially  the  suppression  of 
the  monasteries,  aroused  much  opposition,  notably  in  northern 
England,  with  the  result  that  a  formidable  insurrection,  known 
as  the  Pilgrimage  of  Grace,  broke  out  in  the  summer  of  1536, 
but  by  the  early  part  of  the  following  year  was  effectually 
crushed. 

Though  these  changes  in  England  were  primarily  those  of 
ecclesiastical  politics  rather  than  religious  conviction,  the  dis 
turbed  state  of  the  country  gave  opportunity  for  a  real,  though  as 
yet  not  numerous,  Protestant  party.  In  origin  it  seems  to  have 
been  more  indigenous  than  imported,  and  to  have  followed  more 
at  first  the  pathway  shown  by  Wyclif  than  by  Luther.  Like 
Wyclif,  it  looked  to  the  state  to  reform  the  church,  and  viewed 
the  riches  of  the  church  as  a  hindrance  to  its  spirituality.  Hence 
this  party  had  little  fault  to  find  with  Henry's  assertions  and 
confiscations.  Like  Wyclif,  it  valued  the  circulation  of  the 
Bible,  and  came  more  and  more  to  test  doctrine  and  ceremony 
by  conformity  to  the  Scriptures.  As  the  German  revolt  de 
veloped,  it  came  to  feel  more  and  more  continental  influences. 
A  conspicuous  leader  was  William  Tyndale  (1492?-1536). 
Eager  to  translate  the  New  Testament,  and  unable  to  have  it 
published  in  England,  he  found  refuge  on  the  Continent  in 
1524,  visited  Luther,  and  published  a  really  admirable  transla 
tion  from  the  Greek  in  1526.  Churchly  and  civil  authorities 
tried  to  suppress  it,  but  it  was  a  force  in  spreading  the  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures.  Tyndale  himself  died  a  martyr  in  Vilvorde, 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  257-268. 


406       HENRY'S  OWN  RELIGIOUS  ATTITUDE 

near  Brussels,  in  1536.  Tyndale's  friend,  John  Frith  (1503- 
1533),  found  refuge  in  Marburg,  and  thence  returned  to  Eng 
land,  only  to  be  arrested  and  burned  in  London  in  1533  for 
denying  the  doctrines  of  purgatory  and  transubstantiation.  In 
sympathy  with  these  doctrinally  reformatory  views,  though 
varying  in  outward  expression,  were  Cranmer,  Nicholas  Ridley 
(1500?-! 555),  Hugh  Latimer  (1490?-1555),  and  John  Hooper 
( ?-1555),  all  to  be  bishops,  and  all  to  die  by  fire  for  their  faith. 
As  Henry's  opposition  to  Rome  developed,  Protestant  feeling 
spread  among  laymen  of ,  influence,  a  conspicuous  instance 
being  the  Seymour  family,  from  which  Henry  had  taken  his 
third  Queen. 

Henry's  own  religious  attitude  was  that  of  Catholic  ortho 
doxy,  save  on  the  substitution  of  his  own  authority  for  that 
of  the  Pope.  His  only  departures  from  it  were  when  dangers 
of  attack  from  abroad  compelled  him  to  seek  possible  political 
support  from  the  German  Protestants,  and  he  did  not  then  go 
far.  Such  an  occasion  occurred  in  the  years  1535  and  1536. 
He  sent  a  commission  to  discuss  doctrine  in  Wittenberg, 
though  it  came  to  little.  In  1536  Henry  himself  drafted  Ten 
Articles  in  which  he  made  his  utmost  concession  to  Protestant 
ism.  The  authoritative  standards  of  faith  are  the  Bible,  the 
Apostles',  Nicene,  and  Athanasian  creeds,  and  the  "four  first 
councils."  Only  three  sacraments  are  defined:  baptism,  pen 
ance,  and  the  Lord's  Supper;  the  others  are  not  mentioned 
either  in  approval  or  denial.  Justification  implies  faith  in 
Christ  alone,  but  confession  and  absolution  and  works  of 
charity  are  also  necessary.  Christ  is  physically  present  in  the 
Supper.  Images  are  to  be  honored,  but  with  moderation. 
The  saints  are  to  be  invoked,  but  not  because  they  "will  hear 
us  sooner  than  Christ."  Masses  for  the  dead  are  desirable, 
but  the  idea  that  the  "bishop  of  Rome"  can  deliver  out  of 
purgatory  is  to  be  rejected. 

A  more  influential  act  of  this  time,  instigated  by  Cranmer, 
was  that  an  English  translation  of  the  Bible,  made  up  in  large 
part  of  Tyndale's  version,  but  in  considerable  portion  from  the 
inferior  work  of  Miles  Coverdale,  was  allowed  sale  in  1537,  and 
was  ordered  by  Cromwell  in  1538  to  be  placed  accessible  to 
the  public  in  each  church.1  The  Lord's  Prayer  and  the  ten 
commandments  were  to  be  taught  in  English,  the  litany  was 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  p.  275. 


HENRY'S  RELIGIOUS  POLICY  407 

translated;  but  otherwise  worship  remained  substantially  un 
changed  In  the  Latin  language  and  form  while  Henry  lived. 

Henry's  work  during  these  years  had  been  free  from  for 
eign  interference,  because  Charles  V  and  Francis  I  were  at 
war  from  1536  to  1538.  With  the  arrival  of  peace  his  dangers 
greatly  increased.  The  Pope  demanded  a  joint  attack  by 
France  and  Spain  on  the  royal  rebel.  Henry's  diplomacy  and 
mutual  jealousies  warded  it  off;  but  he  took  several  steps  of 
importance  to  lessen  his  peril.  He  would  show  the  world  that 
he  was  an  orthodox  Catholic  save  in  regard  to  the  Pope.  Ac 
cordingly,  in  June,  1539,  Parliament  passed  the  Six  Articles 
Act.1  It  affirmed  as  the  creed  of  England  a  strict  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation,  denial  of  which  was  to  be  punished  by  fire. 
It  repudiated  communion  in  both  bread  and  wine,  and  priestly 
marriage.  It  ordered  the  permanent  observation  of  vows  of 
chastity,  enjoined  private  masses,  and  auricular  confession. 
This  statute  remained  in  force  till  Henry's  death.  It  was  not 
enough,  however,  that  Henry  should  show  himself  orthodox. 
He  was  a  widower,  and  Cromwell  was  urgent  that  he  strengthen 
his  position  by  a  marriage  which  would  please  the  German 
Protestants,  and  unite  him  with  those  opposed  to  the  Emperor 
Charles  V.  Anne  of  Cleves,  sister  of  the  wife  of  John  Fred 
erick,  the  Saxon  Elector,  was  selected.  The  marriage  took  place 
on  January  6,  1540. 

Meanwhile  Henry  had  completed  the  confiscations  of  all  the 
monasteries  in  1539.2  He  was  stronger  at  home  than  ever. 
Francis  and  Charles  were  evidently  soon  to  be  again  at  war, 
and  the  Emperor  was  beginning  to  court  Henry's  assistance. 
German  Protestants  looked  askance  at  his  Six  Articles,  and  he 
now  no  longer  needed  their  aid.  Henry  had  regarded  the  mar 
riage  with  Anne  of  Cleves  as  a  mere  political  expedient.  An 
annulment  was  obtained  in  July,  1540,  from  the  bishops  on 
the  ground  that  the  King  had  never  given  "inward  consent" 
to  the  marriage,  and  Anne  was  handsomely  indemnified  pe 
cuniarily.  For  Cromwell,  to  whom  the  marriage  was  due,  he 
had  no  further  use.  A  bill  of  attainder  was  put  through 
Parliament,  and  the  King's  able,  but  utterly  unscrupulous, 
servant  was  beheaded  on  July  28,  1540.  These  events  were 
accompanied  by  increasing  opposition  to  the  Protestant  ele 
ment,  and  this  Catholic  inclination  was  evidenced  in  Henry's 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  303-319.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  281-303. 


408  PROTESTANTISM  IN  POWER 

marriage  to  Catherine  Howard,  niece  of  the  duke  of  Norfolk, 
shortly  after  his  separation  from  Anne  of  Cleves ;  but  the  new 
Queen's  conduct  was  open  to  question,  and  in  February,  1542, 
she  was  beheaded.  In  July,  1543,  he  married  Catherine  Parr, 
who  had  the  fortune  to  survive  him.  On  January  28,  1547, 
Henry  died. 

At  Henry's  death  England  was  divided  into  three  parties. 
Of  these,  that  embracing  the  great  body  of  Englishmen  stood 
fairly  with  the  late  King  in  desiring  no  considerable  change  in 
doctrine  or  worship,  while  rejecting  foreign  ecclesiastical  juris 
diction.  It  had  been  Henry's  strength  that,  with  all  his 
tyranny,  he  was  fairly  representative  of  this  great  middle  party. 
There  were,  besides,  two  small  parties,  neither  fairly  represen 
tative — a  Catholic  wing  that  would  restore  the  power  of  the 
papacy,  and  a  Protestant  faction  that  would  introduce  reform 
as  it  was  understood  on  the  Continent.  The  latter  had  un 
doubtedly  been  growing,  in  spite  of  repression,  during  Henry's 
last  years.  It  was  to  be  England's  fortune  that  the  two  smaller 
and  unrepresentative  parties  should  be  successively  in  power 
during  the  next  two  reigns,  and  that  to  religious  turmoil  agra 
rian  unrest  should  be  added,  owing  to  the  great  changes  in 
property  caused  by  monastic  confiscations,  and  even  more  to 
enclosures  of  common  lands  by  greedy  landlords,  and  the  im 
poverishment  of  humbler  tenants  by  the  loss  of  their  time- 
honored  rights  of  use. 

Edward  VI  was  but  nine  years  of  age.  The  government  was, 
therefore,  administered  in  his  name  by  a  council,  of  which  the 
earl  of  Hertford,  or,  as  he  was  immediately  created,  duke  of 
Somerset,  was  chief,  with  the  title  of  Protector.  Somerset 
was  the  brother  of  the  young  King's  mother,  the  short-lived 
Jane  Seymour.  He  was  a  man  of  Protestant  sympathies,  and  of 
excellent  intentions — a  believer  in  a  degree  of  liberty  in  religious 
and  political  questions  in  marked  contrast  to  Henry  VIII. 
He  was,  also,  a  sincere  friend  of  the  dispossessed  lower  agricul 
tural  classes.  Under  his  rule  the  new  comparative  freedom  of 
religious  expression  led  to  many  local  innovations  and  much 
controversy,  in  which  the  revolutionary  party  more  and  more 
gained  the  upper  hand.  In  1547  Parliament  ordered  the  ad 
ministration  of  the  cup  to  the  laity.1  The  same  year  the  last 
great  confiscation  of  church  lands  occurred — the  dissolution  of 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  322-328. 


THE  PRAYER   BOOK  409 

I 

the  "chantries,"  that  is,  endowed  chapels  for  saying  masses. 
The  properties  of  religious  fraternities  and  guilds  were  also 
sequestered.1  The  Six  Articles  were  repealed.  Early  in  1548 
images  were  ordered  removed  from  the  churches.  The  marriage 
of  priest  was  made  legal  in  1549.2 

The  confusion  soon  became  great,  and  as  a  means  at  once  of 
advancing  the  reforms  and  securing  order,  Parliament,  on 
January  21,  1549,  enacted  an  Act  of  Uniformity,3  by  which 
the  universal  use  of  a  Book  of  Common  Prayer  in  English  was 
required.  This  book,  known  as  the  First  Prayer  Book  of  Ed 
ward  VI,  was  largely  the  work  of  Cranmer,  based  on  the  older 
English  services  in  Latin,  with  some  use  of  a  revised  Roman 
breviary,  published  in  1535  by  Cardinal  Fernandez  de  Quinones, 
and  the  Lutheranly  inclined  tentative  Consultation  of  Hermann 
von  Wied,  archbishop  of  Cologne,  issued  in  1543.  In  its 
larger  feature  it  is  still  the  Prayer  Book  of  the  Church  of  Eng 
land,  but  this  edition  preserved  much  of  detail  of  older  wor 
ship,  such  as  prayers  for  the  dead,  communion  at  burials, 
anointing  and  exorcism  in  baptism,  and  anointing  the  sick, 
which  was  soon  to  be  abandoned.  In  the  Eucharist  the  words 
used  in  handing  the  elements  to  the  communicant  were  the 
first  clause  of  the  present  Anglican  form,  implying  that  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  really  received. 

Meanwhile,  Somerset  was  beset  with  political  troubles.  To 
counteract  the  growing  power  of  France  in  Scotland  he  urged 
the  union  of  the  two  countries  by  the  ultimate  marriage  of 
King  Edward  with  the  Scottish  Princess  Mary,  to  be  "Queen 
of  Scots,"  and  supported  his  efforts  by  an  invasion  of  Scotland 
in  which  the  Scots  were  terribly  defeated,  on  September  10, 
1547,  at  Pinkie,  but  by  which  his  main  purpose  was  frustrated. 
The  angered  Scottish  leaders  hastened  to  betroth  Mary  to  the 
heir  of  France,  the  later  Francis  II,  an  event  of  prime  signifi 
cance  for  the  Scottish  reformation. 

Somerset's  fall  came  about,  however,  through  causes  credita 
ble  to  himself.  He  realized  the  agrarian  discontent,  and  be 
lieved  that  efforts  should  be  furthered  to  check  enclosures. 
In  this  he  had  the  bitter  opposition  of  the  landowning  classes, 
of  whom  none  were  more  greedy  than  the  recent  purchasers  of 
monastic  property.  Extensive  risings  took  place  in  1549. 
They  were  put  down  with  difficulty,  largely  by  the  efficiency  of 

'Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  328-357.     *Ibid.,  pp.  366-368.     Ubid.,  pp.  358-366. 


410        SOMERSET  AND  NORTHUMBERLAND 

the  earl  of  Warwick.  Thus  in  favor  with  the  propertied  classes, 
Warwick  headed  a  conspiracy  which  thrust  Somerset  from  his 
protectorate  in  October,  1549. 

Warwick,  or  the  duke  of  Northumberland  as  he  later  be 
came,  though  never  assuming  the  title  Protector,  was  now  the 
most  powerful  man  in  England.  The  religious  situation  under 
went  rapid  change.  Somerset  had  been  a  man  of  great  modera 
tion,  anxious  to  conciliate  all  parties.  Northumberland  was 
without  religious  principles  himself,  but  he  pushed  forward 
the  Protestant  cause  for  political  reasons,  and  the  movement 
now  took  on  a  much  more  radical  character.  Though  ap 
parently  reconciled  to  Somerset,  he  distrusted  the  former 
protector's  popularity,  and  had  Somerset  beheaded  in  1552. 
His  own  greed,  tyranny,  and  misgovernment  made  him  cor 
dially  hated. 

The  Prayer  Book  of  1549  was  not  popular.  Conservatives 
disliked  the  changes.  Protestants  felt  that  it  retained  too 
much  of  Roman  usage.  These  criticisms  were  supported  by  a 
number  of  foreign  theologians  of  prominence,  driven  from  Ger 
many  by  the  Interim,  who  found  welcome  in  England,  of  whom 
the  most  influential  was  Butzer  of  Strassburg.  This  hostility 
was  now  able  to  be  effective  under  the  more  radical  policy  of 
Northumberland,  and  led  to  the  revision  of  the  Prayer  Book, 
and  its  reissue  under  a  new  Act  of  Uniformity  in  1552.1  Much 
more  of  the  ancient  ceremonial  was  now  done  away.  Prayers 
for  the  dead  were  now  omitted,  a  communion  table  substituted 
for  the  altar,  common  bread,  instead  of  a  special  wafer,  used  in 
the  Supper,  exorcism  and  anointing  set  aside,  the  priests'  vest 
ments  restricted  to  the  surplice,  and  what  is  now  the  second 
clause  of  the  Anglican  form  of  the  delivery  of  the  elements 
substituted,  implying  a  doctrine  looking  toward  the  Zwinglian 
conception  of  the  Supper. 

Cranmer  had  been  engaged  in  the  preparation  of  a  creed, 
which  was  submitted  by  order  of  the  Council  of  Government 
in  1552  to  six  theologians,  of  whom  John  Knox  was  one.  The 
result  was  the  Forty-two  Articles,  which  were  authorized  by 
the  young  King's  signature,  June  12,  1553,  less  than  a  month 
before  his  death.  Though  moderate  for  the  period,  they  were 
decidedly  more  Protestant  in  tone  than  the  Prayer  Book. 

Unpopular  as  he  was,  Northumberland  was  determined  to 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  369-372. 


MARY;  THE  ROMAN  REACTION  411 

I 

maintain  his  power.  Edward  VI  was  visibly  frail  in  body, 
and  Northumberland  feared  for  his  own  life  should  Mary  suc 
ceed  to  the  throne.  The  plan  that  he  now  adopted  was  desper 
ate.  He  induced  the  youthful  King  to  settle  the  succession 
on  Lady  Jane  Grey,  wife  of  Northumberland's  fourth  son, 
Guilford  Dudley,  and  granddaughter  of  Henry  VIIFs  sister 
Mary.  Edward  VI  had  no  legal  right  so  to  do.  He  passed 
by  the  claims  of  his  half-sisters,  Mary  and  Elizabeth,  and  of 
Mary  "Queen  of  Scots,"  whose  genealogical  title  was  better 
than  that  of  Lady  Jane.  To  this  wild  plan  Cranmer  gave 
reluctant  consent.  On  July  6,  1553,  Edward  VI  died. 

Northumberland's  plot  failed  completely.  His  unpopularity 
was  such  that  even  the  most  Protestant  portions  of  England, 
such  as  the  city  of  London,  rallied  to  Mary.  She  was  soon 
safely  on  the  throne  and  Northumberland  was  beheaded,  de 
claring  on  the  scaffold  that  he  was  a  true  Catholic.  Mary 
proceeded  with  caution  at  first,  guided  by  the  astute  advice  of 
her  cousin  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  Parliament  declared  her 
mother's  marriage  to  Henry  VIII  valid.  The  ecclesiastical 
legislation  of  Edward  VI's  reign  was  repealed,  and  public  wor 
ship  restored  to  the  forms  of  the  last  year  of  Henry  VIII.1 
Cranmer  was  imprisoned.  The  Emperor  saw  in  Mary's  proba 
ble  marriage  an  opportunity  to  win  England,  and  now  proposed 
his  son  Philip,  soon  to  be  Philip  II  of  Spain,  as  her  husband. 
The  marriage  took  place  on  July  25,  1554,  and  was  exceedingly 
unpopular,  as  threatening  foreign  control. 

Reconciliation  with  Rome  had  thus  far  been  delayed,  though 
bishops  and  other  clergy  of  reformatory  sympathies  had  been 
removed,  and  many  of  the  more  earnest  Protestants  had  fled 
to  the  Continent,  wrhere  they  were  warmly  received  by  Calvin, 
though  coolly  treated  by  the  Lutherans  as  heretical  on  the  ques 
tion  of  Christ's  physical  presence  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  The 
reason  of  this  delay  was  fear  lest  the  confiscated  church  proper 
ties  should  be  taken  from  their  present  holders.  On  intimation 
that  this  would  not  be  the  papal  policy,  Cardinal  Reginald 
Pole  (1500-1558)  was  admitted  to  England.  Parliament  voted 
the  restoration  of  papal  authority,  and  on  November  30,  1554, 
Pole  pronounced  it  and  the  nation  was  absolved  of  heresy. 
Parliament  now  proceeded  to  re-enact  the  ancient  laws  against 
heresy2  and  to  repeal  Henry  VIII's  ecclesiastical  legislation, 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  377-380.  2  Ibid.,  p.  384. 


412  EXECUTIONS   UNDER  MARY 

thus  restoring  the  church  to  the  state  in  which  it  had  been  in 
1529,  save  that  former  church  property  was  assured  by  the 
statute  to  its  present  possessors.1 

Severe  persecution  at  once  began.  Its  first  victim  was  John 
Rogers,  a  prebendary  of  St.  Paul's,  who  was  burned  in  London 
on  February  4,  1555.  The  attitude  of  the  people,  who  cheered 
him  on  the  way  to  the  stake,  was  ominous  for  this  policy ;  but 
before  the  end  of  the  year,  seventy-five  had  suffered  by  fire  in 
various  parts  of  England,  of  whom  the  most  notable  were  the 
former  bishops,  Hugh  Latimer  and  Nicholas  Ridley,  whose 
heroic  fortitude  at  their  deaths  in  Oxford,  on  October  16, 
created  a  profound  popular  impression.  Another  conspicuous 
victim  of  this  year  was  John  Hooper,  former  bishop  of  Glou 
cester  and  Worcester.  Mary  was  determined  to  strike  the  high 
est  of  the  anti-Roman  clergy,  Archbishop  Cranmer.  Cranmer 
was  not  of  the  heroic  stuff  of  which  Latimer,  Ridley,  Hooper, 
and  Rogers  were  made.  He  was  formally  excommunicated  by 
sentence  at  Rome  on  November  25,  1555,  and  Pole  was  shortly 
after  made  archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  his  stead.  Cranmer 
was  now  in  a  logical  dilemma.  He  had  asserted,  since  his 
appointment  under  Henry  VIII,  that  the  sovereign  is  the 
supreme  authority  in  the  English  church.  His  Protestantism 
was  real,  but  that  sovereign  was  now  a  Roman  Catholic.  In 
his  distress  he  now  made  submission  declaring  that  he  recog 
nized  papal  authority  as  established  by  law.  Mary  had  no 
intention  of  sparing  the  man  who  had  pronounced  her  mother's 
marriage  invalid.  Cranmer  must  die.  But  it  was  hoped  that 
by  a  public  abjuration  of  Protestantism  at  his  death  he  would 
discredit  the  Reformation.  That  hope  was  nearly  realized. 
Cranmer  signed  a  further  recantation  denying  Protestantism 
wholly;  but  on  the  day  of  his  execution  in  Oxford,  March  21, 
1556,  his  courage  returned.  He  repudiated  his  retractions 
absolutely,  declared  his  Protestant  faith,  and  held  the  offending 
hand,  which  had  signed  the  now  renounced  submissions,  in  the 
flame  till  it  was  consumed.  His  dying  day  was  the  noblest  of 
his  'ife. 

Philip  had  left  England  in  1555,  and  this  absence,  coupled 
with  her  own  childless  state,  preyed  on  Mary's  mind,  inducing 
her  to  feel  that  she  had  not  done  enough  to  satisfy  the  judgment 
of  God.  Persecution  therefore  continued  unabated  till  her 

JGee  and  Hardy,  pp.  385-415. 


ACCESSION  OF  ELIZABETH  413 

death  on  November  17,  1558.  In  all,  somewhat  less  than  three 
hundred  were  burned — a  scanty  number  compared  with  the 
toll  of  sufferers  in  the  Netherlands.  But  English  sentiment 
deeply  revolted.  These  martyrdoms  did  more  for  the  spread 
of  anti-Roman  sentiment  than  all  previous  governmental 
efforts  had  accomplished.  It  was  certain  that  the  accession  of 
the  next  sovereign  would  witness  a  change  or  civil  war. 

Elizabeth  (Queen  1558-1603)  had  long  passed  as  illegitimate, 
though  her  place  in  the  succession  had  been  secured  by  act  of 
Parliament  in  the  lifetime  of  Henry  VIII.  Of  all  Henry's 
children  she  was  the  only  one  who  really  resembled  him  in 
ability,  insight,  and  personal  popularity.  With  a  masculine 
force  of  character  she  combined  a  curious  love  of  personal  adorn 
ment  inherited  from  her  light-minded  mother.  Of  real  religious 
feeling  she  had  none,  but  her  birth  and  Roman  denials  of  her 
mother's  marriage  made  her  necessarily  a  Protestant,  though 
under  Mary,  when  her  life  had  been  in  danger,  she  had  con 
formed  to  the  Roman  ritual.  Fortunately  her  accession  had 
the  support  of  Philip  II  of  Spain,  soon  to  be  her  bitterest  en 
emy.  That  favor  helped  her  with  English  Catholics.  Earnest 
Roman  as  he  was,  Philip  was  politician  enough  not  to  wish  to 
see  France,  England,  and  Scotland  come  under  the  rule  of  a 
single  royal  pair,  and  if  Elizabeth  was  not  Queen  of  England, 
then  Mary  "Queen  of  Scots,"  wife  of  the  prince  who  was  in 
1559  to  become  King  Francis  II  of  France,  was  rightfully 
entitled  to  the  English  throne.  In  her  first  measures  on  acces 
sion  Elizabeth  enjoyed,  moreover,  the  aid  of  one  of  the  most 
cautious  and  far-sighted  statesmen  England  has  ever  produced, 
William  Cecil  (1521-1598),  better  known  as  Lord  Burghley, 
whom  she  at  once  made  her  secretary  and  who  was  to  be  her 
chief  adviser  till  his  death.  For  Elizabeth  it  was  a  great  ad 
vantage  also  that  she  was  thoroughly  English  in  feeling, 
and  deeply  sympathetic  with  the  political  and  economic 
ambitions  of  the  nation.  This  representative  quality  recon 
ciled  many  to  her  government  whom  mere  religious  considera 
tions  would  have  repelled.  No  one  doubted  that  she  put  Eng 
land  first. 

Elizabeth  proceeded  cautiously  with  her  changes.  Parlia 
ment  passed  the  new  Supremacy  Act,1  with  much  opposition, 
on  April  29, 1559.  By  it  the  authority  of  the  Pope  and  all  pay- 
1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  442-458. 


414  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT 

ments  and  appeals  to  him  were  rejected.  A  significant  change 
of  title  appeared,  however,  by  Elizabeth's  own  insistence. 
Instead  of  the  old  "Supreme  Head,"  so  obnoxious  to  the 
Catholics,  s  j  was  now  styled  "Supreme  Governor"  of  the 
church  in  England — a  much  less  objectionable  phrase,  though 
amounting  to  the  same  thing  in  practice.  The  tests  of  heresy 
were  now  to  be  the  Scriptures,  the  first  four  General  Councils, 
and  the  decisions  of  Parliament.  Meanwhile  a  commission 
had  been  revising  the  Second  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI  (ante, 
p.  410).  The  prayer  against  the  Pope  was  omitted,  as  was  the 
declaration  that  kneeling  at  the  Supper  did  not  imply  adora 
tion,  while  the  question  of  Christ's  physical  presence  was  left 
intentionally  undetermined  by  the  combination  of  the  forms 
of  delivery  in  the  two  Edwardean  books  (ante,  pp.  409,  410). 
These  modifications  were  designed  to  render  the  new  service 
more  palatable  to  Catholics.  The  Act  of  Uniformity1  now 
ordered  all  worship  to  be  conducted,  after  June  24,  1559,  in 
accordance  with  this  liturgy,  and  provided  that  the  ornaments 
of  the  church  and  the  vestments  of  its  ministers  should  be 
those  of  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI. 

The  oath  of  supremacy  was  refused  by  all  but  two  ob 
scurer  members  of  the  Marian  episcopate,  but  among  the  lower 
clergy  generally  resistance  was  slight,  the  obstinate  not  amount 
ing  to  two  hundred.  New  bishops  must  be  provided,  and 
Elizabeth  directed  the  election  of  her  mother's  one-time  chap 
lain,  Matthew  Parker  (1504-1575),  as  archbishop  of  Canter 
bury.  His  consecration  was  a  perplexing  question;  but  there 
were  those  in  England  who  had  received  ordination  to  the 
bishopric  under  Henry  VIII  and  Edward  VI.  Parker  was  now 
consecrated,  on  December  17,  1559,  at  the  hands  of  four  such- 
William  Barlow,  John  Scory,  Miles  Coverdale,  and  John  Hodg- 
kin.  The  validity  of  the  act,  on  which  the  apostolic  succession 
of  the  English  episcopate  depends,  has  always  been  strongly 
affirmed  by  Anglican  divines,  while  attacked  by  Roman  theo 
logians,  on  various  grounds,  and  declared  invalid  by  Pope  Leo 
XIII  in  1896,  for  defect  in  "intention."  Thus  inaugurated, 
a  new  Anglican  episcopate  was  speedily  established.  A  defini 
tion  of  the  creed,  other  than  implied  in  the  Prayer  Book,  was 
purposely  postponed;  but  in  1563  the  Forty-two  Articles  of 
1553  (ante,  p.  410)  were  somewhat  revised,  and  as  the  famous 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  458-467. 


SCOTLAND  BEFORE  THE  REFORMATION     415 

Thirty-nine  Articles,  became  the  statement  of  faith  of  the 
Church  of  England.1 

Thus,  by  1563  the  Elizabethan  settlement  was  accom 
plished.  It  was  threatened  from  two  sides:  from  t^iat  of  Rome, 
and,  even  more  dangerously,  from  the  earnest  rerormers  who 
wished  to  go  further  and  soon  were  to  be  nicknamed  Puritans. 
The  remarkable  feature  of  the  English  revolt  is  that  it  pro 
duced  no  outstanding  religious  leader — no  Luther,  Zwingli, 
Calvin,  or  Knox.  Nor  did  it,  before  the  beginning  of  Eliza 
beth's  reign,  manifest  any  considerable  spiritual  awakening 
among  the  people.  Its  impulses  were  _pplitical  and  social.  A 
great  revival  of  the  religious  life  of  England  was  to  come,  the 
earlier  history  of  which  was  to  be  coincident  with  Elizabeth's 
reign,  but  which  was  to  owe  nothing  to  her. 

SECTION  X.      THE  SCOTTISH  REVOLT 

At  the  dawn  of  the  sixteenth  century  Scotland  was  a  poor 
and  backward  country.  Its  social  conditions  were  mediaeval. 
The  power  of  its  Kings  was  small.  Its  nobles  were  turbulent. 
Relatively  its  church  was  rich  in  land,  owning  about  one-half 
that  of  the  country,  but  churchly  positions  were  largely  used  to 
supply  places  for  younger  sons  of  noble  houses,  and  much  clerical 
property  was  in  the  hands  of  the  lay  nobles.  The  weak  mon 
archy  had  usually  leaned  on  the  church  as  against  the  lay 
nobility.  Education  was  backward,  though  universities  had 
been  founded  in  the  fifteenth  century  in  St.  Andrews,  Glas 
gow,  and  Aberdeen.  Compared  with  continental  seats  of  learn 
ing  they  were  weak. 

The  determining  motive  of  most  of  Scottish  political  history 
in  this  period  was  fear  of  dominance  or  annexation  by  Eng 
land,  persuading  it  to  link  the  fortunes  of  the  land  with  those 
of  France.  Three  grievous  defeats  by  the  English — Flodden 
(1513),  Solway  Moss  (1542),  and  Pinkie  (1547)— strengthened 
this  feeling  of  antagonism,  but  showed  that  even  English  superi 
ority  in  force  could  not  conquer  Scotland.  On  the  other  hand, 
Scotland  in  alliance  with  France  was  a  great  peril  for  England, 
the  more  serious  when  England  had  broken  with  the  papacy. 
Therefore  England  and  France  both  sought  to  build  up  parties 
and  strengthen  factions  favorable  to  themselves  in  Scotland. 

1  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  111 :  487-516. 


416          PROTESTANT  BEGINNINGS.    KNOX 

On  the  whole  the  powerful  family  of  Douglas  was  inclined 
toward  England,  while  that  of  Hamilton  favored  France. 
France  also  had  strong  supporters  in  Archbishop  James  Beaton 
(?-1539)  of  St.  Andrews,  the  primate  of  Scotland,  and  his 
nephew,  Cardinal  David  Beaton  (14947-1546),  his  successor 
in  the  same  see.  Though  King  James  V  (reigned  1513-1542) 
was  nephew  of  Henry  VIII,  and  his  grandson,  James  VI,  was  to 
become  James  I  of  England  in  1603  and  unite  the  two  crowns 
after  the  death  of  Elizabeth,  James  V  threw  in  his  fortunes  with 
France,  marrying  successively  a  daughter  of  Francis  I,  and,  after 
her  death,  Mary  of  Lorraine,  of  the  powerful  French  Catholic 
family  of  Guise.  This  latter  union,  so  important  in  the  history 
of  Scotland,  was  to  have  as  its  fruit  Mary  "Queen  of  Scots." 

Some  Protestant  beginnings  were  early  made  in  Scotland. 
Patrick  Hamilton  (1504?-1528),  who  had  visited  Wittenberg 
and  studied  in  Marburg,  preached  Lutheran  doctrine,  and  was 
burned  on  February  29,  1528.  The  cause  grew  slowly.  In 
1534  and  1540  there  were  other  executions.  Yet,  in  1543  the 
Scottish  Parliament  authorized  the  reading  and  translation  of 
the  Bible.  It  was  but  a  temporary  phase,  due  to  English 
influence,  and  by  1544  Cardinal  Beaton  and  the  French  party 
were  employing  strong  repression.  Chief  of  the  preachers  at 
this  time  was  George  Wishart  (1513?-! 546),  who  was  burned  by 
Cardinal  Beaton  on  March  2,  1546.  On  May  29  Beaton 
himself  was  brutally  murdered,  partly  in  revenge  for  Wishart' s 
death  and  partly  out  of  hostility  to  his  French  policy.  The 
murderers  gained  possession  of  the  castle  of  St.  Andrews  and 
rallied  their  sympathizers  there.  In  1547  a  hunted  Protestant 
preacher,  apparently  a  convert  and  certainly  a  friend  of  Wish- 
art,  of  no  considerable  previous  conspicuity,  took  refuge  with 
them  and  became  their  spiritual  teacher.  This  was  John  Knox, 
to  be  the  hero  of  the  Scottish  reformation. 

Born  in  or  near  Haddington,  between  1505  and  1515,  Knox's 
early  career  was  obscure.  He  was  certainly  ordained  to  the 
priesthood,  but  when  Wishart  was  arrested  he  was  with  that 
martyr,  and  prepared  to  defend  him.  French  forces  sent  to 
reduce  the  rebels  in  St.  Andrews  castle  compelled  its  surrender, 
and  Knox  was  carried  to  France  to  endure  for  nineteen  months 
the  cruel  lot  of  a  galley-slave.  Released  at  length,  he  made 
his  way  to  England,  then  under  the  Protestant  government 
ruling  in  the  name  of  Edward  VI,  became  one  of  the  royal  chap- 


KNOX'S   LEADERSHIP  417 

I 

lains,  and  in  1552  declined  the  bishopric  of  Rochester.  The 
accession  of  Mary  compelled  his  flight,  in  1554,  but  the  English 
refugees  whom  he  first  joined  in  Frankfort  were  divided  by 
his  criticisms  of  the  Edwardean  Prayer-Book,1  and  he  soon 
found  a  welcome  in  Geneva,  where  he  became  an  ardent  dis 
ciple  of  Calvin,  and  labored  on  the  Genevan  version  of  the 
English  Bible,  later  so  valued  by  the  English  Puritans. 

Meanwhile  the  English  had  alienated  Scotland  more  than 
ever  by  the  defeat  of  Pinkie,  in  1547.  Mary  "Queen  of  Scots" 
had  been  betrothed  to  the  heir  to  the  French  throne  and  sent 
to  France  for  safety  in  1548,  while  her  mother,  the  Guise, 
Mary  of  Lorraine,  became  regent  of  Scotland  in  1554. 

To  a  large  portion  of  the  Scottish  nobles  and  people  this 
full  dependence  on  France  was  as  hateful  as  any  submission 
to  England  could  have  been.  Protestantism  and  national  inde 
pendence  seemed  to  be  bound  together,  and  it  was  in  this 
double  struggle  that  Knox  was  to  be  the  leader.  Knox  now 
dared  to  return  to  Scotland,  in  1555,  and  preached  for  six 
months;  but  the  situation  was  not  yet  ripe  for  revolt,  and 
Knox  returned  to  Geneva  to  become  the  pastor  of  the  church 
of  English-speaking  refugees  there.  He  had,  however,  sowed 
fruitful  seed.  On  December  3,  1557,  a  number  of  Protestant 
and  anti-French  nobles  in  Scotland  entered  into  a  covenant 
to  "establish  the  most  blessed  Word  of  God  and  His  congre 
gation" — from  which  they  were  nicknamed  "The  Lords  of  the 
Congregation."  2  Additional  fuel  was  given  to  this  dissent 
by  the  marriage  of  Mary  to  the  French  heir  on  April  24,  1558.3 
Scotland  now  seemed  a  province  of  France,  for  should  there 
be  a  son  of  this  union  he  would  be  ruler  of  both  lands,  and  the 
French  grip  was  made  doubly  sure  by  an  agreement  signed  by 
Mary,  kept  secret  at  the  time,  that  France  should  receive 
Scotland  should  she  die  without  heirs.  Before  1558  was  ended 
Elizabeth  was  Queen  of  England,  and  Mary  "Queen  of  Scots" 
was  denouncing  her  as  an  illegitimate  usurper,  and  proclaiming 
herself  the  rightful  occupant  of  the  English  throne. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  advocates  of  Scottish  inde 
pendence  and  of  Protestantism  rapidly  increased  and  became 
more  and  more  fused  into  one  party.  Elizabeth,  moreover, 
could  be  expected  to  assist,  if  only  for  her  own  protection. 
Knox  saw  that  the  time  was  ready.  On  May  2,  1559,  he  was 

1  Kidd,  p.  691.  2  Ibid.,  p.  696.  3  Ibid.,  p.  690. 


418  THE  SCOTTISH  CHURCH 

back  in  Scotland.  Nine  days  later  he  preached  in  Perth.  The 
mob  destroyed  the  monastic  establishments  of  the  town.1 
This  action  the  regent  naturally  regarded  as  rank  rebellion. 
She  had  French  troops  at  her  disposal,  and  both  sides  promptly 
armed  for  combat.  They  proved  fairly  equal,  and  the  result 
was  undecided.  Churches  were  wrecked  and  monastic  property 
sacked,  to  Knox's  disgust,  in  many  parts  of  Scotland.  On 
July  10,  1559,  Henry  II  of  France  died,  and  Mary's  husband, 
Francis  II  became  King  in  his  stead.  French  reinforcements 
were  promptly  sent  to  the  regent  in  Scotland.  Matters  went 
badly  for  the  reformers.  At  last,  in  January,  1560,  English 
help  came.  The  contest  dragged.  On  June  11,  1560,  the  re 
gent  died,  but  her  cause  perished  with  her.  On  July  6  a 
treaty  was  made  between  France  and  England  by  which 
French  soldiers  were  withdrawn  from  Scotland,  and  Frenchmen 
were  debarred  from  all  important  posts  in  its  government. 
The  revolution  had  triumphed  through  English  aid,  but  with 
out  forfeiting  Scottish  national  independence,  and  its  inspirer 
had  been  Knox.2  In  this  contest  the  Scottish  middle  classes 
had  first  shown  themselves  a  power,  and  their  influence  was 
for  the  newer  order. 

The  victorious  party  now  pushed  its  triumph  in  the  Scottish 
Parliament.  On  August  17,  1560,  a  Calvinistic  confession  of 
faith,  largely  prepared  by  Knox,  was  adopted  as  the  creed  of 
the  realm.3  A  week  later  the  same  body  abolished  papal  juris 
diction,  and  forbad  the  mass  under  pain  of  death  for  the  third 
offense.4  Though  the  King  and  Queen  in  France  refused  their 
approval,  the  majority  of  the  nation  had  spoken. 

Knox  and  his  associates  now  proceeded  to  complete  their 
work.  In  December,  1560,  a  meeting  was  held  which  is  re 
garded  as  the  first  Scottish  "General  Assembly,"  in  January 
following  the  First  Book  of  Discipline  was  presented  to  the 
Parliament.5  It  was  a  most  remarkable  document,  attempt 
ing  to  apply  the  system  worked  out  by  Calvin  to  a  whole  king 
dom,  though  the  Presbyterian  system  was  far  from  thoroughly 
developed  as  yet.  In  each  parish  there  should  be  a  minister 
and  elders  holding  office  with  the  consent  of  the  congregation. 
Minister  and  elders  constituted  the  disciplinary  board — the 

1  Kidd,  p.  697.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  698-700. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  700,  704-707;  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  3 :  437-479. 

«  Ibid.,  pp.  701,  702.  '  /wdi>  p>  707. 


KNOX'S  ECCLESIASTICAL  SYSTEM  419 

later  "  session  " — with  power  of  excommunication.  In  the  larger 
towns  were  to  be  meetings  for  discussion,  out  .of  which  "  pres 
byteries  "  were  to  grow ;  over  groups  of  ministers  and  congrega 
tions  were  synods,  and  over  all  the  "General  Assembly."  The 
need  of  the  times  and  the  inchoate  state  of  the  church  led  to 
two  further  institutions,  "readers,"  in  places  where  there  were 
no  ministers  or  the  work  was  large,  and  "superintendents," 
without  spiritual  authority,  but  with  administrative  right  to 
oversee  the  organization  of  parishes,  and  recommend  minis 
terial  candidates.  Besides  these  ecclesiastical  features,  the 
Book  sketched  out  notable  schemes  of  national  education 
and  for  the  relief  of  the  poor.  Knox  would  have  church, 
education,  and  poor  supported  from  the  old  church  property ; 
but  here  the  Book  met  the  resistance  of  Parliament,  which 
did  not  adopt  it,  though  many  of  the  body  approved.  The 
ecclesiastical  constitution  gradually  came  into  force;  but  the 
nobles  so  possessed  themselves  of  church  lands  that  the  church 
from  relatively  to  the  means  of  the  country  one  of  the  richest 
became  one  of  the  poorest  in  Christendom.  This  relative  pov 
erty  stamped  on  it  a  democratic  character,  however,  that  was 
to  make  the  church  of  Scotland  the  bulwark  of  the  people  against 
encroachments  by  the  nobles  and  the  crown. 

All  observances  not  having  Scriptural  authority  were  swept 
away.  Sunday  was  the  only  remaining  holy  day.  For  the 
conduct  of  public  worship  Knox  prepared  a  Book  of  Common 
Order,  sometimes  called  "Knox's  Liturgy,"  which  was  ap 
proved  by  the  "General  Assembly,"  in  1564.1  It  was  largely 
based  on  that  of  the  English  congregation  in  Geneva,  which 
in  turn  was  modelled  on  that  of  Calvin.  It  allowed,  however, 
even  more  use  of  free  prayer,  the  forms  given  being  regarded 
as  models,  the  strict  employment  of  which  was  not  obligatory, 
though  the  general  order  and  content  of  the  service  were  definite 
enough. 

Knox  was  soon  obliged  to  defend  what  he  had  gained.  King 
Francis  II  of  France  died  on  December  5,  1560,  and  in  the 
following  August  Mary  returned  to  Scotland.  Her  position 
as  a  youthful  widow  was  one  to  excite  a  sympathy  which  her 
great  personal  charm  increased.  She  was  no  longer  Queen 
of  France,  and  that  element  which  had  supported  Protestant 
ism  not  by  reason  of  religion  but  from  desire  of  national  in- 

*  Kidd,  pp.  708-715. 


420  MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS 

dependence  might  well  think  that  the  pressing  danger  of  French 
domination  which  had  induced  acquiescence  in  the  religious 
revolution  had  passed.  Mary  behaved,  at  first,  with  great 
prudence.  While  she  made  no  secret  of  her  own  faith,  and 
had  mass  said  in  her  chapel  to  the  furious  disapproval  of  Knox, 
who  was  now  minister  of  St.  Giles  in  Edinburgh,  and  admired 
by  the  burghers  of  that  city,  she  did  not  interfere  in  the  re 
ligious  settlement  effected  in  1560.  She  strove  to  secure  recog 
nition  as  Elizabeth's  heir  to  the  English  throne,  a  thing  which 
Elizabeth  had  no  mind  to  grant.  Mary  had  the  sage  advice 
of  her  half-brother,  James  Stewart,  later  to  be  earl  of  Moray 
(1531?-1570),  who  had  been  a  leader  of  the  "Lords  of  the 
Congregation."  She  tried  by  personal  interviews  of  great 
skill  to  win  Knox,  but  he  refused  any  overture  and  remained 
the  soul  of  the  Protestant  party.  Still  the  prospect  darkened 
for  him.  Mary  won  friends.  The  Protestant  nobles  were 
divided.  The  mass  was  increasingly  being  used.  Knox  had 
good  reason  to  fear  that  Mary  would  give  a  Catholic  King  to 
Scotland  by  marrying  some  great  foreign  prince.  A  marriage 
with  the  son  of  Philip  II  of  Spain  was  seriously  discussed. 
Even  more  alarming  for  the  Protestant  cause  in  Scotland  and 
England  was  Mary's  actual  marriage  on  July  29,  1565,  to  her 
cousin,  Henry  Stewart,  Lord  Darnley  (1545-1567),  with  whom 
she  had  fallen  in  love.  Darnley's  claim  to  the  English  throne 
stood  next  to  that  of  Mary  herself.  He  was  popular  with 
English  Catholics,  and  though  he  had  passed  as  a  Protestant 
in  England,  he  now  avowed  himself  a  Catholic.  The  marriage 
increased  Elizabeth's  danger  at  home  and  strengthened  the 
Catholic  party  in  Scotland.  Moray  opposed  it,  was  driven 
from  court,  and  soon  into  exile,  and  Mary  made  much  progress 
in  subduing,  one  after  another,  the  Protestant  lords  who  sym 
pathized  with  Moray.  She  thus  lost  her  wisest  adviser. 

Thus  far  Mary  had  acted  fairly  shrewdly,  but  Scottish  Protes 
tantism  was  now  saved  by  Mary's  mistakes  and  want  of  self- 
control.  Darnley  was  certainly  disagreeable  and  vicious. 
Her  feelings  for  him  changed.  On  the  other  hand,  his  jealousy 
was  roused  by  the  favor  which  Mary  showed  to  David  Riccio, 
an  Italian  whom  Mary  employed  as  a  foreign  secretary,  and 
who  was  looked  upon  by  the  Protestant  lords  as  their  enemy. 
Darnley  and  a  number  of  Protestant  nobles,  therefore,  entered 
into  a  plot  by  which  Riccio  was  dragged  from  Mary's  presence 


MARY'S  DOWNFALL  421 

I 

and  murdered  in  the  palace  of  Holy  rood,  on  March  9,  1566. 
Mary  behaved  with  great  cunning.  Dissembling  her  anger  at 
the  weak  Darnley,  she  secured  from  him  the  names  of  his  fellow 
conspirators,  outlawed  those  who  had  actually  participated  in 
the  deed,  and  took  the  others  back  into  favor,  of  course  with 
the  knowledge  on  their  part  that  they  were  received  on  suffer 
ance.  On  June  19,  1566,  Mary  and  Darnley's  son  was  born, 
the  future  James  VI  of  Scotland  and  James  I  of  England. 
Mary  never  seemed  surer  on  the  Scottish  throne. 

In  reality  Mary  had  never  forgiven  her  husband,  and  she 
was  now  thrown  much  with  a  Protestant  noble,  James  Hep 
burn,  earl  of  Bothwell  (1536?-1578),  a  rough,  licentious,  but 
brave,  loyal,  and  martial  man,  whose  qualities  contrasted  with 
those  of  her  weak  husband.  Bothwell  now  led  in  a  conspiracy 
to  rid  Mary  of  Darnley,  with  how  much  share  on  the  part  of 
Mary  herself  is  still  one  of  the  disputed  questions  of  history. 
Darnley,  who  was  recovering  from  smallpox,  was  removed  by 
Mary  from  Glasgow  to  a  house  on  the  edge  of  Edinburgh, 
where  Mary  spent  part  of  the  last  evening  with  him.  Early 
on  the  morning  of  February  10,  1567,  the  house  was  blown  up, 
and  Darnley's  body  was  found  near  it.  Public  opinion  charged 
Bothwell  with  the  murder,  and  it  widely  believed,  probably 
with  justice,  that  Mary  also  was  guilty  of  it.  At  all  events 
she  heaped  honors  on  Bothwell,  who  succeeded  in  securing  ac 
quittal  by  a  farce  of  a  trial.  On  April  24,  Bothwell  met  Mary 
on  one  of  her  journeys  and  made  her  captive  by  a  show  of 
force — it  was  generally  believed  with  her  connivance.  He  was 
married,  but  he  was  divorced  from  his  wife  for  adultery  on 
May  3,  and  on  May  15  he  and  Mary  were  married  by  Protes 
tant  rites. 

These  shameless  transactions  roused  general  hostility  in 
Scotland,  while  they  robbed  Mary,  for  the  time,  of  Catholic 
sympathy  in  England  and  on  the  Continent.  Protestants  and 
Catholics  in  Scotland  joined  forces  against  her.  Just  a  month 
after  the  wedding  Mary  was  a  prisoner,  and  on  July  24,  1567, 
she  was  compelled  to  abdicate  in  favor  of  her  year-old  son, 
and  appoint  Moray  as  regent,  while  she  was  herself  imprisoned 
in  Lochleven  Castle.  On  July  29  John  Knox  preached  the 
sermon  at  James  VFs  coronation.  With  Mary's  fall  came  the 
triumph  of  Protestantism,  which  was  now  definitely  established 
by  Parliament  in  December.  Mary  herself  escaped  from 


422  KNOX  AND  MELVILLE 

Lochleven  in  May,  1568,  but  Moray  promptly  defeated  her 
supporters,  and  she  fled  to  England,  where  she  was  to  remain, 
a  centre  of  Catholic  intrigue,  till  her  execution  for  conspiracy 
against  Elizabeth's  life,  in  February,  1587. 

Knox's  fiery  career  was  about  over.  On  November  24,  1572, 
he  died,  having  influenced  not  merely  the  religion  but  the 
character  of  the  nation  more  than  any  other  man  in  Scottish 
history.  Knox's  work  was  to  be  taken  up  by  Andrew  Melville 
(1545-1623),  who  had  taught  as  Beza's  colleague  in  Geneva, 
from  1568  to  his  return  to  Scotland  in  1574.  He  was  the  edu 
cational  reformer  of  the  Universities  of  Glasgow  and  St.  Andrews 
and  even  more  distinguished  as  the  perfecter  of  the  Presbyterian 
system  in  Scotland  and  its  vigorous  defender  against  the  royal 
and  episcopal  encroachments  of  James  VI,  who  compelled  him 
to  spend  the  last  sixteen  years  of  his  life  in  exile  from  his  native 
land. 

SECTION  XI.      THE  ROMAN  REVIVAL 

It  has  already  been  noted  (ante,  pp.  321-325)  that  a  genera 
tion  before  Luther's  breach  with  Rome,  Spain  was  witnessing 
a  vigorous  reformatory  work  led  by  Queen  Isabella  and  Car 
dinal  Ximenes.  It  combined  zeal  for  a  more  moral  and  intelli 
gent  clergy,  abolition  of  glaring  abuses,  and  Biblical  studies  for 
the  learned,  not  for  the  people,  with  unswerving  orthodoxy, 
judged  by  mediaeval  standards,  and  repression  of  heresy  by 
the  inquisition.  It  was  this  movement  that  was  to  give  life 
and  vigor  to  the  Roman  revival,  often,  though  rather  incor 
rectly,  called  the  Counter-Reformation.  Outside  of  Spain  it 
had  very  little  influence  when  Luther  began  his  work.  Indeed, 
the  decline  of  the  Roman  Church  was  nowhere  more  evident 
than  in  the  feebleness  with  which  Protestant  onslaughts  were 
met  by  the  contemporaries  of  the  first  quarter  century  of  the 
great  revolt,  and  the  incapacity  of  the  Popes  themselves  to 
realize  the  real  gravity  of  the  situation,  and  to  put  their  inter 
ests  as  great  churchmen  above  their  concerns  as  petty  Italian 
princes.  Though  Adrian  VI  (1522-1523)  exhibited  a  real, 
though  utterly  ineffective,  reformatory  zeal,  in  the  Spanish 
sense,  during  his  brief  and  unhappy  pontificate,  neither  his 
predecessor,  Leo  X  (1513-1521),  nor  his  successor,  Clement  VII 
(1523-1534),  was  in  any  sense  a  religious  leader,  and  the  politi- 


REFORM  AND  REVOLUTION  IN  ITALY      423 

cal  ambitions  of  the  latter  contributed  materially  to  the  spread 
of  Protestantism. 

Yet  there  were  those,  even  in  Italy,  who  were  anxious  for 
reform,  though  not  for  revolution.  Such  a  group  founded  in 
Rome  about  1517  the  "Oratory  of  Divine  Love."  Among  its 
leaders  was  Giovanni  Pietro  Caraffa  (1476-1559),  later  to  be 
Pope  Paul  IV  (1555-1559),  of  distinguished  Neapolitan  parent 
age,  who  had  lived  for  a  number  of  years  in  Spain,  and  had 
brought  from  there  an  admiration  for  the  Spanish  reformation, 
though  no  love  for  the  Spanish  monarchy.  Another  member 
was  Jacopo .  Sadoleto  (1477-1547) ;  and  in  -close  sympathy, 
though  not  one  of  the  Oratory,  was  Senator  Gasparo  Contarini 
(1483-1542)  of  Venice,  who  was  still  a  layman.  Of  these, 
Caraffa  was  of  unbending  devotion  to  mediaeval  dogma,  while 
Contarini  had  much  sympathy  with  Luther's  doctrine  of  jus 
tification  by  faith  alone,  though  not  with  his  rejection  of  the 
ancient  hierarchy.  Pope  Paul  III  (1534-1549),  more  alive 
than  his  predecessors  to  the  gravity  of  the  situation,  made 
Contarini,  Caraffa,  Sadoleto,  and  the  English  Reginald  Pole 
(1500-1558)  cardinals  early  in  his  pontificate,  and  appointed 
them,  with  others,  a  commission  on  the  betterment  of  the 
church,  which  made  a  plain-spoken,  but  resultless,  report  in 
1538.1 

These  men  were  far  removed  from  really  Protestant  views. 
But  there  were  a  considerable  number  whose  sympathies  led 
them  much  further.  In  Venice  they  were  particularly  numer 
ous,  though  they  produced  no  real  leader  there.  In  that  city 
Bruccioli's  Italian  translation  of  the  New  Testament  was 
printed  in  1530,  and  of  the  whole  Bible  in  1532.  Ferrara's 
hospitality,  under  Duchess  Renee,  has  already  been  noted  in 
connection  with  Calvin  (ante,  p.  394).  The  most  remarkable 
of  these  groups  was  that  gathered  in  Naples  about  Juan  Valdes, 
(1500?-1541),  a  Spaniard  of  high  rank,  employed  in  the  ser 
vice  of  Charles  V  and  a  man  of  devout,  Evangelical  mysticism. 
From  his  disciple,  Benedetto  of  Mantua,  came  about  1540  the 
most  popular  book  of  this  circle,  The  Benefits  of  Christ's  Death. 
Among  his  adherents  were  Pietro  Martire  Vermigli  (1500- 
1562),  whose  father  had  been  an  admirer  of  Savonarola,  himself 
prior  of  the  monastery  of  St.  Peter  in  Naples,  destined  to  be 
professor  of  Protestant  theology  in  Strassburg  and  Oxford; 

!Kidd,  pp.  307-318. 


424  IGNATIUS  LOYOLA 

and  Bernardino  Ochino  (1487-1564),  vicar-general  of  the 
Capuchin  order,  later  Protestant  prebendary  of  Canterbury, 
pastor  in  Zurich,  and  ultimately  a  wanderer  for  erratic  opinions. 
Another  friend  of  this  group  was  Caraffa's  own  nephew,  Gal- 
eazzo  Caraccioli,  marquis  of  Vico,  later  to  be  Calvin's  intimate 
associate  in  Geneva.  These  Italian  Evangelicals  were,  however, 
unorganized  and  without  princely  support,  save  very  cautiously 
in  Ferrara,  nor  did  they  gain  following  among  the  common 
people.  In  Italy  they  were  an  exotic  growth;  and  the  same 
may  be  said  of  the  very  few  Protestants  who  were  to  be  found 
in  Spain. 

Pope  Paul  III  wavered  for  a  time  between  the  method  of 
conciliation  advocated  by  Contarini,  who  took  part  in  the  re 
union  discussions  in  Regensburg  (ante,  p.  376)  as  papal  legate, 
and  that  of  Caraffa,  who  urged  stern  repression  of  doctrinal 
divergence,  while  advocating  administrative  and  moral  reform. 
Eventually  he  decided  for  the  latter,  and  his  decision  became 
the  policy  of  his  successors.  On  Caraffa's  urgent  appeal  Paul 
III,  on  July  21,  1542,  reorganized  the  inquisition,  largely  on  the 
Spanish  model,  on  a  universal  scale,1  though  of  course  its  actual 
establishment  took  place  only  where  it  had  the  support  of 
friendly  civil  authority.  Before  it,  the  feeble  beginnings  of 
Italian  Protestantism  rapidly  disappeared.  One  of  the  main 
weapons  of  the  Catholic  Counter-Reformation  was  thus  forged. 

Much  more  important  was  a  revival  of  missionary  zeal  which 
the  fresh  genius  of  Spain  contributed  to  kindle  Catholic  enthusi 
asm.  Viewed  from  any  standpoint,  Ignatius  Loyola  is  one  of 
the  master  figures  of  the  Reformation  epoch.  Inigo  Lopez  de 
Recalde  was  born  of  a  noble  family  in  northern  Spain  in  1491. 
After  serving  as  a  page  at  the  court  of  Ferdinand,  he  became  a 
soldier.  His  intrepid  firmness  was  exhibited  when  Pamplona 
was  besieged  by  the  French  in  1521,  but  he  received  there  a 
wound  that  made  further  military  service  impossible.  During 
his  slow  recovery  he  studied  the  lives  of  Christ,  St.  Dominic, 
and  St.  Francis.  Chivalrous  ideals  still  lingered  in  Spain, 
and  he  determined  that  he  would  be  a  knight  of  the  Virgin. 
Recovered,  in  a  measure,  he  journeyed  to  Monserrat,  and  hung 
his  weapons  on  the  Virgin's  altar.  Thence  he  went  to  Manresa, 
where,  in  the  Dominican  monastery,  he  began  those  directed 
visions  which  were  afterward  to  grow  into  his  Spiritual  Ex- 
1  Kidd,  pp.  347-350. 


THE  JESUITS  425 

ercises.  The  year  1523  saw  him  a  pilgrim  in  Jerusalem,  but 
the  Franciscans  who  were  there  maintaining  the  cross  with 
difficulty,  thought  him  dangerous  and  sent  him  home. 

Convinced  that  if  he  was  to  do  the  work  he  desired  he  must 
have  an  education,  Ignatius  entered  a  boy's  class  in  Barcelona, 
and  went  rapidly  forward  to  the  Universities  of  Alcala  and 
Salamanca.  A  born  leader,  he  gathered  like-minded  companions 
with  whom  he  practised  his  spiritual  exercises.  This  aroused 
the  suspicion  of  the  Spanish  inquisition  and  his  life  was  in 
danger.  In  1528,  he  entered  the  University  of  Paris,  just  as 
Calvin  was  leaving  it.  There  he  made  no  public  demonstra 
tion,  but  gathered  round  himself  a  handful  of  devoted  friends 
and  disciples — Pierre  Lefevre,  Francis  Xavier,  Diego  Lainez, 
Alfonso  Salmeron,  Nicolas  Bobadilla,  and  Simon  Rodriguez, 
mostly  from  the  Spanish  peninsula.  In  the  church  of  St. 
Mary  on  Montmartre,  in  Paris,  on  August  15,  1534,  these  com 
panions  took  a  vow  to  go  to  Jerusalem  to  labor  for  the  church 
and  their  fellow  men,  or,  if  that  proved  impossible,  to  put  them 
selves  at  the  disposition  of  the  Pope.  It  was  a  little  student 
association,  the  connecting  bond  of  which  was  love  to  God  and 
the  church,  as  they  understood  it. 

The  year  1536  saw  them  in  Venice;  but  Jerusalem  was  barred 
by  war,  and  they  now  determined  to  ask  the  Pope's  direction. 
Ignatius  was  beginning  to  perceive  what  his  society  might  be 
come.  Italy  had  seen  many  military  companies  in  earthly 
service.  His  would  be  the  military  company  of  Jesus,  bound 
by  a  similar  strictness  of  obedience,  and  a  like  careful,  though 
spiritual,  exercise  of  arms,  to  fight  the  battle  of  the  church 
against  infidels  and  heretics.  In  spite  of  ecclesiastical  opposi 
tion,  Paul  III  was  induced  by  the  favorable  attitude  of  Con- 
tarini  and  the  skill  of  Ignatius  to  authorize  the  company  on 
September  27,  1540.1  The  constitution  of  the  society  was  as 
yet  indefinite,  save  that  it  was  to  have  a  head  to  whom  full 
obedience  was  due,  and  should  labor  wherever  that  head  and 
the  Pope  should  direct.  In  April,  1541,  Ignatius  was  chosen 
the  first  "general" — an  office  which  he  held  till  his  death, 
July  31,  1556. 

The  constitution  of  the  Jesuits  was  gradually  worked  out, 
indeed  it  was  not  completed  till  after  Ignatius's  death,  though 
its  main  features  were  his  work.  At  the  head  is  a  "general," 
1  Kidd,  pp.  335-340. 


426  THE  JESUITS 

to  whom  absolute  obedience  is  due;  but  who,  in  turn,  is  watched 
by  assistants  appointed  by  the  order,  and  can,  if  necessary, 
be  deposed  by  it.  Over  each  district  is  a  "provincial,"  ap 
pointed  by  the  "general."  Each  member  is  admitted,  after  a 
careful  novitiate,  and  pledges  obedience  to  the  fullest  extent  in 
all  that  does  not  involve  sin.  His  superiors  assign  him  to  the 
work  which  they  believe  him  best  fitted  to  do.  That  that 
work  may  be  better  accomplished  the  Jesuits  are  bound  to  no 
fixed  hours  of  worship  or  form  of  dress  as  are  monks.  Each 
member  is  disciplined  by  use  of  Ignatius's  Spiritual  Exercises, 
— a  remarkable  work,  in  accordance  with  which  the  Jesuit  is 
drilled  in  a  spiritual  manual  of  arms,  by  four  weeks  of  intense 
contemplation  of  the  principal  facts  of  the  life  and  work  of 
Christ,  and  of  the  Christian  warfare  with  evil,  under  the  gui 
dance  of  a  spiritual  drill-master.  It  was  a  marvellous  instru 
ment  that  Ignatius  constructed,  combining  the  individualism  of 
the  Renaissance — each  man  assigned  to  and  trained  for  his 
peculiar  work — with  the  sacrifice  of  will  and  complete  obedience 
to  the  spirit  and  aims  of  the  whole.  It  stands  as  the  very 
antithesis  of  Protestantism. 

Though  the  Jesuit  society  spread  rapidly  in  Italy,  Spain, 
and  Portugal,  it  was  slower  in  gaining  strong  foothold  in  France 
and  Germany,  but  by  the  latter  half  of  the  sixteenth  century 
it  was  the  advance-guard  of  the  Counter-Reformation.  Its 
chief  agencies  were  preaching,  the  confessional,  its  excellent 
schools — not  for  the  multitude,  but  for  the  well-born  and 
well-to-do — and  its  foreign  missions.  Under  Jesuit  influence 
more  frequent  confession  and  communion  became  the  rule  in 
Catholic  countries;  and,  to  aid  the  confessional,  the  Jesuit 
moral  practice  was  gradually  developed,  chiefly  after  Ignatius's 
death,  and  especially  in  the  early  part  of  the  seventeenth  cen 
tury,  in  a  fashion  that  has  aroused  the  criticism  not  only  of 
Protestants  but  of  many  Catholics.  In  estimating  them 
aright  it  should  be  remembered  that  these  moral  treatises  do 
not  represent  ideals  of  conduct,  but  the  minima  on  which  ab 
solution  can  be  given;  and,  also,  that  the  Jesuit  morality  em 
phasized  the  universal  Latin  tendency  to  regard  sin  as  a  series 
of  definite  acts  rather  than  as  a  state. 

The  nature  of  sin  itself  was  minimized.  That  only  is  sin 
which  is  done  with  a  clear  knowledge  of  its  sinfulness  and  a  full 
consent  of  the  will.  Personal  responsibility  was  undermined 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  TRENT  427 


by  the  doctrine  of  "  probabilism,"  by  which  a  man  could  choose 
what  seemed  to  him  the  worse  course  if  it  had  for  it  accepted 
authority.  "Mental  reservation/'  also,  taught  that  men,  for 
ends  that  seemed  good,  were  not  bound  to  give  the  whole  truth 
on  oath,  or  even  a  correct  impression — a  doctrine  that  more 
than  any  other  produced  the  common  Anglo-Saxon  Protestant 
feeling  that  Jesuits  were  unscrupulous  and  untrustworthy. 

Naturally  a  society  thus  international  in  character,  the 
members  of  which  were  bound  to  their  officers  by  constant 
letters  and  reports,  speedily  became  a  force  in  political  life. 

With  the  establishment  of  the  world-wide  inquisition  and 
the  foundation  of  the  Company  of  Jesus,  the  Council  of  Trent 
must  be  classed  as  an  important  agency  of  the  Counter-Refor 
mation.  That  council  had  a  checkered  history.  Earnestly 
desired  by  Charles  V,  and  reluctantly  called  by  Paul  III,  it 
actually  met  in  Trent  in  December,  1545.  In  March,  1547, 
the  Italian  majority  transferred  it  to  Bologna;  but  in  May, 
1551,  it  was  back  in  Trent,  where  the  Spanish  minority  had  all 
along  remained.  On  April  28,  1552,  it  adjourned  in  conse 
quence  of  the  successful  Protestant  uprising  under  Moritz  of 
Saxony  against  the  Emperor  (ante,  p.  381).  Not  till  January, 
1562,  did  it  meet  again,  and  it  completed  its  work  on  December 
4,  1563.  The  voting  was  confined  to  bishops  and  heads  of 
orders,  without  division  by  nations,  as  at  Constance  (ante,  p. 
308).  The  majority  was  therefore  in  Italian  hands.  That  rep 
resented  the  papal  wish  that  definition  of  doctrine  should  pre 
cede  reform.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Spanish  bishops,  equally 
orthodox  in  belief,  stood  manfully  for  the  Emperor's  desire  that 
reform  should  precede  doctrine.  It  was  agreed  that  doctrine 
and  reform  should  be  discussed  alternately,  but  all  decisions 
had  to  have  the  approval  of  the  Pope,  thus  strengthening  the 
papal  supremacy  in  the  church.  No  voices  were  more  influen 
tial  in  the  council  than  those  of  the  Pope's  theological  experts, 
the  Jesuits  Lainez,  and  Salmeron,  and  at  a  later  stage,  that  of 
the  earliest  German  Jesuit,  Peter  Kanis,  and  their  influence 
steadily  supported  the  anti-Protestant  spirit. 

The  doctrinal  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent1  were  clear 
and  definite  in  their  rejection  of  Protestant  beliefs,  while  often 
indecisive  regarding  matters  of  dispute  in  mediaeval  contro 
versies.  Scripture  and  tradition  are  equally  sources  of  truth. 
1  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  2 :  77-206. 


428         REFORMS  AND  INCREASE  OF  ZEAL 

The  church  alone  has  the  right  of  interpretation.  Justification 
is  skilfully  defined,  yet  so  as  to  leave  scope  for  work-merit. 
The  sacraments  are  the  mediaeval  seven  and  defined  in  the 
mediseval  way.  The  result  is  ably  expressed,  but  the  church 
had  shut  the  door  completely  on  all  compromise  or  modifica 
tion  of  mediseval  doctrine. 

Though  the  reforms  effected  by  the  council  were  far  from 
realizing  the  wishes  of  many  in  the  Roman  Church,  they  were 
not  inconsiderable.  Provision  was  made  for  the  public  inter 
pretation  of  Scripture  in  the  larger  towns.  Bishops  were  bound 
to  preach  and  the  parish  clergy  to  teach  plainly  what  is  need 
ful  for  salvation.  Residence  was  required  and  pluralities 
restrained.  Seminaries  for  clerical  training  were  ordered,  and 
better  provision  for  the  moral  supervision  of  the  clergy.  Regu 
lations  were  enacted  to  prevent  clandestine  marriages.  A  less 
praiseworthy  step  was  the  approval  of  an  index  of  prohibited 
books,  to  be  prepared  by  the  Pope,  following  the  example 
set  by  Paul  IV  in  1559.  It  resulted  in  1571  in  the  creation  by 
Pius  V  (1566-1572)  of  the  Congregation  of  the  Index,  at 
Rome,  to  censure  publications. 

From  a  Spanish  theologian,  influential  at  Trent,  Melchior 
Cano  (1525-1560),  came  the  ablest  defense  of  the  Roman  posi 
tion  that  had  yet  appeared,  in  his  De  Locis  Theologicis  Libri  XII, 
published  three  years  after  his  death.  Theology,  he  taught, 
is  based  on  authority.  The  authority  of  Scripture  rests  on  the 
sifting  and  approving  power  of  the  church,  which  determines 
what  is  Scripture  and  what  not;  but  as  by  no  means  all  of 
Christian  doctrine  is  contained  in  the  Scripture,  tradition, 
handed  down  and  sifted  by  the  church,  is  another  authoritative 
basis. 

The  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  witnessed  a  change  in 
the  prime  interest  of  the  holders  of  the  papacy.  They  were 
still  Italian  temporal  princes,  but  the  concerns  of  the  church 
had  now  assumed  the  first  place.  With  Paul  IV  (Caraffa, 
1555-1559)  the  Counter-Reformation  reached  the  papal 
throne,  with  the  result  that  many  of  the  abuses  of  the  curia 
were  done  away.  Rome  was  a  more  sombre,  a  much  more 
ecclesiastical,  city  than  in  the  Renaissance,  but  the  Popes  were 
now  prevailingly  men  of  strict  life,  religious  earnestness,  and 
strenuous  Catholicism. 

The  result  of  all  these  influences  was  that  by  1565  Catholic 


THE   ROMAN   REVIVAL  429 

I 

earnestness  had  been  revived.  A  new  spirit,  intense  in  its 
opposition  to  Protestantism,  mediaeval  in  its  theology,  but 
ready  to  fight  or  to  suffer  for  its  faith,  was  wide-spread.  Against 
this  renewed  zeal  Protestantism  not  merely  ceased  to  make  new 
conquests,  its  hold  on  the  Rhineland  and  in  southern  Germany 
was  soon  shaken  in  considerable  measure.  Catholicism  began 
to  hope  to  win  back  all  that  it  had  lost. 

This  Catholic  revival  was  also  characterized  by  a  large  de 
velopment  of  mystical  piety,  in  which,  as  in  so  much  else,  Spain 
was  the  leader.  The  chief  traits  of  this  religious  life  were  self- 
renouncing  quietism — a  raising  of  the  soul  in  contemplation 
and  voiceless  prayer  to  God — till  a  union  in  divine  love,  or  in 
ecstasy  of  inner  revelation,  was  believe  to  be  achieved.  Often 
ascetic  practices  were  thought  to  aid  this  mystic  exaltation. 
Conspicuous  in  this  movement  were  Teresa  de  Jesus  (1515-1582) 
of  Avila  and  Juan  de  la  Cruz  (1542-1591)  of  Ontiveros,  in  Spain. 
Francois  de  Sales  (1567-1622),  nominally  bishop  of  Geneva,  to 
whose  efforts  the  winning  for  Catholicism  of  the  portions  of 
Savoy  near  Geneva  was  due,  represented  the  same  type  of  piety, 
and  it  was  spread  in  France  by  his  disciple,  Jeanne  Francoise 
Fremyot  de  Chantal  (1572-1641).  It  was  combined  with  ex 
treme  devotion  to  the  church  and  its  sacraments.  It  satisfied 
the  religious  longings  of  more  earnest  Catholic  souls,  and  the 
church,  in  turn,  recognized  it  by  enrolling  many  of  its  exemplars 
among  the  saints. 

Catholic  zeal  went  forth,  in  full  measure,  also,  in  the  work 
of  foreign  missions.  These  were  primarily  the  endeavor  of 
the  monastic  orders,  notably  the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans, 
with  whom  from  its  foundation  the  Company  of  Jesus  eagerly 
shared  in  the  labor.  To  the  work  of  these  orders  the  Chris 
tianity  of  Southern,  Central,  and  large  parts  of  North  America 
is  due.  They  converted  the  Philippines.  Most  famous  of 
these  Roman  missionaries  was  Ignatius's  original  associate, 
Francis  Xavier  (1506-1552).  Appointed  by  Ignatius  mission 
ary  to  India,  at  the  request  of  King  John  III  of  Portugal,  he 
reached  Goa  in  1542  and  began  a  career  of  marvellous  activity. 
In  Goa  he  founded  a  missionary  college,  he  preached  through 
out  southern  India,  in  1549  he  entered  Japan  and  began  a 
work  which  had  reached  large  dimensions,  when  its  severe  re 
pression  was  undertaken  by  the  native  rulers  in  1612.  Xavier 
died,  in  1552,  just  as  he  was  entering  China.  His  work  was 


430  ROMAN  MISSIONS 

superficial,  an  exploration  rather  than  a  structure,  but  his 
example  was  a  contagious  influence  of  far-reaching  force.  In 
China  the  labor  which  Xavier  had  attempted  was  begun,  in 
1581,  by  the  Jesuit  Matteo  Ricci  (1552-1610),  but  his  desire 
to  be  "all  things  to  all  men,"  led  him  to  compromise  with  an 
cestor-worship,  a  relaxation  which  missionaries  of  other  Catholic 
orders  strongly  opposed.  In  India  the  converts  were  almost 
entirely  from  outcasts  or  low-caste  ranks.  The  Jesuit,  Roberto 
de'  Nobili  (1576?-1656),  began  a  work  for  those  of  high  caste 
in  Madura,  in  1606,  recognizing  caste  distinctions  and  other 
wise  accommodating  itself  to  Indian  prejudices.  Its  apparent 
success  was  large,  but  its  methods  aroused  criticism  and  ulti 
mate  prohibition  by  the  papacy.  Probably  the  most  famous 
experiment  of  Jesuit  missions  was  that  in  Paraguay.  Their 
work  there  began  in  1586.  In  1610,  they  commenced  gathering 
the  natives  into  "reductions,"  or  villages,  each  built  on  a  sim 
ilar  plan,  where  the  dwellers  were  kept  at  peace  and  taught  the 
elements  of  religion  and  industry,  but  held  in  strict  and  semi- 
childlike  dependence  on  the  missionaries,  in  whose  hands  lay 
the  administration  of  trade  and  agriculture.  Greatly  admired, 
the  system  fell  with  the  expulsion  of  the  Jesuits,  in  1767,  and 
has  left  few  permanent  results. 

The  rivalries  of  the  several  orders,  and  the  more  effective 
supervision  of  missionary  labors,  induced  Pope  Gregory  XV 
(1621-1623)  to  found,  in  1622,  the  Congregatio  de  Propaganda 
Fide,  by  which  the  whole  field  could  be  surveyed  and  superin 
tended  from  Rome. 


SECTION  XII.  THE  STRUGGLE  IN  FRANCE,  THE  NETHERLANDS, 
AND  ENGLAND 

The  rivalries  of  France  and  Spain,  with  their  political  and 
military  consequences,  had  made  the  growth  of  the  Reforma 
tion  possible,  and  had  facilitated  the  division  of  Germany  be 
tween  Lutherans  and  Catholics  recorded  in  the  Peace  of  Augs 
burg  of  1555.  Henry  II  (1547-1559)  had  succeeded  Francis  I 
in  France,  and  Charles  V  had  transferred  to  his  son  Philip  II 
(1556-1598)  the  sovereignty  of  Spain,  the  Netherlands,  and  of 
the  Spanish  territories  in  Italy ;  but  the  old  rivalry  continued. 
In  war,  however,  Philip  II  at  first  proved  more  successful  than 
his  father  had  been,  and  the  battles  of  St.  Quentin  in  August, 


PROTESTANTISM  IN  DANGER  431 

1557,  and  Gravelines  in  July,  1558,  forced  France  to  the  Treaty 
of  Cateau-Cambresis  of  April  2,  1559.  That  treaty  was  a 
reckoning  point  in  the  history  of  Europe.  France  abandoned 
the  long  struggle  for  Italy.  Spanish  leadership  was  evidently 
first  in  Europe,  and  had  largely  bound  France  to  follow,  or  at 
least  not  to  oppose,  its  interests.  Protestantism  was  confronted 
by  a  much  more  politically  united  Catholicism  than  it  had  yet 
met.  The  political  head  of  that  Catholicism  was  Philip  II  of 
Spain,  methodical,  industrious,  patient,  and  inflexibly  deter 
mined,  who  saw  as  his  God-appointed  task  the  extirpation  of 
Protestantism,  and  bent  every  energy  to  its  accomplishment. 
The  next  thirty  years  were  to  be  the  time  of  chief  peril  in  the 
history  of  Protestantism. 

The  point  of  highest  danger  was,  perhaps,  in  the  year  1559, 
when  after  the  death  of  Henry  II,  in  July,  the  crown  passed  to 
Francis  II,  whose  wife  was  Mary  "Queen  of  Scots,"  and  by 
her  own  claim  Queen  of  England  also.  Yet  even  Philip's  ar 
dent  Catholicism  was  not  willing  to  see  a  combination  so  dan 
gerous  to  Spain  as  that  of  France,  Scotland,  and  England  under 
a  single  pair  of  rulers.  He  therefore  helped  Elizabeth,  an  action 
which  he  must  afterward  have  regretted  (ante,  p.  413). 

Calvin's  influence  had  increasingly  penetrated  France,  and 
French  Protestants,  or  Huguenots,  as  they  were  known  from 
1557,  multiplied  in  spite  of  severe  persecution.  By  1555  there 
was  a  congregation  in  Paris.  Four  years  later  the  number  of 
Huguenot  Churches  in  France  was  seventy-two.  That  year, 
1559,  they  were  strong  enough  to  hold  their  First  General 
Synod  in  Paris,  to  adopt  a  strongly  Calvinistic  creed  prepared 
by  Antoine  de  la  Roche  Chandieu,1  and  a  Presbyterian  consti 
tution  drawn  from  Calvin's  ecclesiastical  principles.  Popular 
estimate  credited  them  with  400,000  adherents.  Besides 
these  Huguenots  of  religion,  most  of  whom  were  from  the 
economically  oppressed  and  discontented  artisan  classes,  the 
party  was  soon  strengthened  by  the  accession  of  political 
Huguenots. 

The  death  of  Henry  II  and  the  accession  of  Francis  II  left 
the  family  of  Guise,  uncles  of  Francis's  Queen,  all  powerful  in 
his  court.  The  Guises  were  from  Lorraine,  and  were  looked 
upon  by  many  of  the  French  nobility  as  foreigners.  Strenu 
ously  Catholic,  the  two  brothers,  Charles  (1524-1574),  the 

,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  3  :  356-382. 


432  GROWTH  OF  THE  HUGUENOTS 

"cardinal  of  Lorraine,"  was  head  of  the  French  clergy  as 
archbishop  of  Rheims,  while  Francis  (1519-1563),  duke  of 
Guise,  was  the  best  soldier  of  France.  Opposed  to  the  Guise 
family  were  the  family  of  Bourbon,  of  whom  the  chief  in  rank 
was  Antoine  of  Vendome,  titular  King  of  Navarre,  a  man  of 
weak  and  vacillating  spirit,  and  his  much  abler  brother,  Louis, 
prince  of  Conde.  Of  the  house  of  Chatillon,  also  opposed  to 
the  Guise  brothers,  the  leader  was  Gaspard  de  Coligny,  known 
as  Admiral  Coligny,  a  man  of  sterling  character  and  devoted 
to  Calvinism.  These  high  nobles  were  moved  in  large  part  by 
opposition  to  the  centralization  of  power  in  the  King.  They 
represented  thus  the  hostility  of  the  old  feudal  nobility  to  royal 
encroachment.  Their  interests  and  those  of  the  humbler 
middle-class  Calvinists  coincided  in  a  desire  that  things  in 
France  should  not  continue  as  they  were.  The  first  step 
toward  a  revolution  was  taken  when  the  badly  planned  "  Con 
spiracy  of  Amboise  "  in  March,  1560,  failed  in  its  attempt  to 
capture  the  young  King  and  to  transfer  the  government  to  the 
Bourbons.  Conde  would  have  been  executed  had  it  not  been 
for  the  death  of  Francis  II  on  December  5,  1560. 

The  succession  of  Charles  IX  (1560-1574),  brother  of  the 
late  King,  brought  a  new  party  into  the  confused  struggle. 
The  Guises  lost  much  of  their  power  at  court,  but  were  re 
garded  still  as  the  head  of  Catholic  interests  in  France,  and 
were  in  constant  communication  with  Philip  II  of  Spain.  The 
chief  influence  about  the  new  sovereign,  who  was  not  yet 
eleven,  was  now  that  of  his  mother,  Catherine  de5  Medici  (1519- 
1589),  able  and  unscrupulous,  determined  to  maintain  the  rights 
of  the  crown  by  playing  off  the  two  great  noble  factions  of  France 
against  each  other.  She  was  aided  by  a  statesman  of  broad  and 
conciliatory  views,  Michel  de  1'Hopital  (1505-1573),  who  be 
came  chancellor  of  France  in  1560.  Catherine  now  sought  a 
reconciliation  of  the  factions,  released  Conde  from  prison,  per 
mitted  a  public  discussion  between  Catholic  and  Protestant 
theologians  in  Poissy,  in  September,  1561 — in  which  Beza  took 
part — and  followed  it,  in  January,  1562,  with  an  edict  per 
mitting  the  Huguenots  to  assemble  for  worship  except  in 
walled  towns. 

Rather  than  submit,  the  Catholic  party  determined  to  pro 
voke  war.  On  March  1,  1562,  the  body-guard  of  the  duke  of 
Guise  attacked  a  Huguenot  congregation  worshipping  in 


HUGUENOT  WARS.    THE  NETHERLANDS     433 

Vassy.  Three  savage  wars  followed  between  the  Huguenots 
and  Catholics,  1502-15(53,  1567-1568,  and  1568-1570,  with 
short  truces  between.  Duke  Francis  of  Guise  wras  murdered 
by  a  Protestant  assassin.  Antoine,  King  of  Navarre,  and 
Conde  died  of  wounds.  Coligny  was  left  the  head  of  the 
Hugueriot  cause.  On  the  whole,  the  Huguenots  held  their 
own,  and  jealousy  of  Spanish  influence  helped  their  cause,  so 
that  in  August,  1570,  peace  was  made  at  St.  Germain-en-Laye, 
by  which  nobles  were  given  freedom  of  worship,  and  two  places 
for  services  were  permitted  to  the  Huguenot  common  people 
in  each  governmental  division  of  France,  while  four  cities  were 
put  in  Huguenot  control  as  a  guarantee. 

The  situation  at  this  juncture  was  greatly  complicated  by 
the  course  of  events  in  the  Netherlands.  The  sources  of  un 
rest  in  that  region  were  even  more  political  and  economic  than 
religious  in  their  origin,  though  in  the  struggle  religion  assumed 
a  constantly  increasing  prominence.  The  Netherlands,  which 
had  come  to  Philip  II  of  Spain  from  his  father,  Charles  V,  in 
1555,  were  a  group  of  seventeen  provinces,  tenacious  of  local 
rights,  predominantly  commercial  and  manufacturing,  and  dis 
posed  to  resent  all  that  interfered  with  existing  customs  or 
disturbed  trade.  Lutheranism  had  early  entered,  but  had 
been  largely  displaced  by  Anabaptism  among  the  lowest  stratum 
of  the  population,  while  by  1561  when  the  Belgic  Confession 
was  drafted  by  Guy  de  Bray,1  Calvinism  was  winning  converts 
among  the  middle  classes.  The  nobility  was  as  yet  hardly 
touched,  and  in  1562  the  total  number  of  Protestants  was 
reckoned  at  only  100,000. 

Charles  V,  though  strenuously  resisting  the  inroads  of 
Protestantism,  had  largely  respected  Netherlandish  rights  and 
jealousies.  Not  so  Philip  II.  He  determined  to  secure  politi 
cal  and  religious  uniformity  there  similar  to  that  in  Spain. 
In  1559  he  appointed  his  sister,  Margaret  of  Parma,  regent, 
with  an  advisory  committee  of  three,  of  which  the  leading 
spirit  was  his  devoted  supporter,  Cardinal  Granvella  (1517- 
1586),  bishop  of  Arras.  This  committee  practically  usurped 
the  power  of  the  old  councils  of  state,  in  which  the  high  nobles 
had  shared.  The  next  year  Philip  secured  from  the  Pope  a 
reconstitution  of  the  ecclesiastical  geography  of  the  Nether 
lands,  which  had  merit  in  that  it  freed  the  Netherlandish 
1  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  3  :  383-436. 


434    THE  STRUGGLE  IN  THE  NETHERLANDS 

bishoprics  from  foreign  ecclesiastical  supervision,  but  aroused 
jealousy,  since  the  new  prelates  were  Philip's  nominees  and  had 
places  in  the  Parliament,  or  "States  General,"  thus  greatly 
strengthening  Spanish  influence.  Philip,  moreover,  used  every 
power  to  crush  "heresy" — a  course  that  was  disliked  by  the 
middle  classes,  because  it  hurt  trade  and  drove  workmen  to 
emigration.  Nobles  and  merchants  were,  therefore,  increas 
ingly  restive. 

Chief  among  the  opponents  of  these  changes  were  three  emi 
nent  nobles,  William  of  Nassau,  Prince  of  Orange  (1533-1584), 
born  a  Lutheran,  but  now,  nominally  at  least,  a  Catholic,  to 
be  the  hero  of  Dutch  independence;  and  the  Catholic  counts  of 
Egmont  and  Horn.  They  forced  Granvella's  dismissal  in 
1564.  Philip  now  saw  in  them  the  chief  hindrance  to  his 
plans.  He  demanded  the  enforcement  of  the  decrees  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  and  a  stricter  punishment  of  heresy.  A  peti 
tion  of  protest  was  circulated  and  presented  to  the  regent  on 
April  5,  1566 — the  nickname  "Beggars"  given  to  its  signers  on 
that  occasion  becoming  the  name  of  the  party  of  Netherlandish 
freedom.  Popular  excitement  was  intense.  Protestant  preach 
ing  was  openly  heard,  and  in  August,  1556,  iconoclastic  riots, 
opposed  by  such  men  as  William  of  Orange,  wrecked  hundreds 
of  churches. 

To  Philip  these  events  were  rebellion  in  politics  and  religion. 
He  therefore  sent  the  duke  of  Alva  (1508-1582),  an  able 
Spanish  general,  to  Brussels  with  a  picked  Spanish  army  and 
practically  as  governor.  His  arrival  in  August,  1567,  was  fol 
lowed  by  hundreds  of  executions,  among  them  those  of  Egmont 
and  Horn.  William  of  Orange  escaped  to  Germany,  and  organ 
ized  resistance,  but  it  was  beaten  down  by  Alva's  skill.  Alva, 
however,  completed  the  alienation  of  the  mercantile  classes, 
in  1569,  by  introducing  the  heavy  Spanish  taxes  on  sales. 
Meanwhile  William  of  Orange  was  commissioning  sea-rovers, 
who  preyed  on  Spanish  commerce  and  found  an  uncertain 
refuge  in  English  harbors,  where  the  English  Government  had 
been  driven  into  a  more  strenuous  attitude  of  hostility  to  all 
Catholic  forces,  of  which  Philip  was  chief,  by  the  bull  of  deposi 
tion,  issued  against  Elizabeth  by  Pope  Pius  V  on  February 
25,  1570. 

In  April,  1572,  these  sea-rovers  captured  Brill.  The  northern 
provinces  rose.  William  of  Orange  put  himself  at  the  head  of 


THE  MASSACRE  OF  ST.  BARTHOLOMEW     435 

the  movement.  On  July  15,  the  leading  towns  of  Holland,  Zea 
land,  Friesland,  and  Utrecht  recognized  him  as  Stadholder. 
Meanwhile,  since  the  peace  of  1570,  the  Huguenots  and  the  op 
ponents  of  Spain  in  France  had  been  working  for  a  revival  of 
the  older  political  policy,  which  made  France  the  rival  instead  of 
the  ally  of  Spain.  Immediate  assistance  to  the  Netherlandish 
rebels,  to  be  rewarded  by  accession  of  some  territory  to  France, 
was  planned,  and  none  favored  it  more  than  Coligny,  whose 
influence  over  Charles  IX  was  now  great.  To  emphasize  the 
reconciliation  of  parties  in  France,  a  marriage  was  arranged 
between  Henry  of  Navarre,  the  Protestant  son  of  the  late 
Antoine  of  Bourbon,  and  Charles  IX's  sister,  Marguerite  of 
Valois.  For  the  wedding,  on  August  18,  1572,  Huguenot  and 
Catholic  nobles  and  their  followers  gathered  in  the  fanatically 
Catholic  city  of  Paris. 

Catherine  de'  Medici  had  come  to  look  with  fear  on  the  in 
fluence  now  exerted  by  Coligny  over  her  son,  the  King. 
Whether  the  cause  was  jealousy  regarding  her  own  influence, 
or  fear  that  the  war  into  which  Coligny  was  leading  the  King 
would  be  disastrous  to  the  French  crown,  is  uncertain.  Ap 
parently  all  that  she  wanted  at  first  was  Coligny's  removal 
by  murder.  In  this  she  had  the  hearty  sympathy  of  Henry, 
duke  of  Guise  (1550-1588),  the  son  of  the  murdered  Francis, 
who  wrongly  charged  Coligny  with  responsibility  for  his  father's 
death.  On  August  22  an  attempt  on  Coligny's  life  failed,  and 
its  ill-success  carried  panic  to  Catherine.  The  Huguenots  had 
been  alienated  without  being  deprived  of  their  leader.  She 
and  her  supporters  now  suddenly  decided  on  a  general  massacre, 
for  which  the  Guise  party  and  the  fanatical  people  of  Paris 
furnished  abundant  means.  On  August  24,  St.  Bartholomew's 
day,  the  bloody  work  began.  Coligny  was  killed,  and  with 
him  a  number  of  victims  that  has  been  most  variously  estimated, 
reaching  not  improbably  8,000  in  Paris,  and  several  times  that 
number  in  the  whole  of  France.  Henry  of  Navarre  saved  his 
life  by  abjuring  Protestantism. 

The  news  was  hailed  with  rejoicing  in  Madrid  and  in  Rome, 
and  rightly,  if  its  moral  enormity  could  be  overlooked.  It 
had  saved  the  Catholic  cause  from  great  peril.  The  policy  of 
France  was  reversed.  Plans  for  interference  in  the  Nether 
lands  were  at  an  end.  The  desperate  struggle  for  Nether 
landish  freedom  was  the  consequence.  Yet  the  Catholics  did 


436    THE  LEAGUE.    WAR  IN  THE  NETHERLANDS 

not  gain  in  France  what  they  hoped.  The  fourth,  fifth,  sixth, 
and  seventh  Huguenot  Wars,  1573,  1574-1576,  1577,  1580,  ran 
their  course  of  destruction  and  misery,  but  the  Huguenots  were 
not  crushed.  Charles  IX  died  in  1574  and  was  succeeded 
as  King  by  his  vicious  brother,  Henry  III  (1574-1589). 

A  division  among  the  Catholics  themselves  was  developing. 
There  had  long  been  a  considerable  element  which,  while 
Catholic  in  religion,  felt  that  the  protracted  wars  were  ruining 
the  land  and  permitting  foreign,  especially  Spanish,  intrigue. 
They  believed  that  some  basis  of  peace  with  the  Huguenots 
should  be  reached,  and  were  known  as  the  Politiques.  On  the 
other  hand,  those  who  put  religion  first  and  were  willing  to 
see  France  become  a  mere  appanage  of  Spain,  if  thereby  Catholi 
cism  could  triumph,  had  been  for  some  time  organizing  associa 
tions  in  various  parts  of  France  to  maintain  the  Roman  Church. 
In  1576  these  were  developed  into  a  general  "  League,"  led  by 
Henry  of  Guise  and  supported  by  Spain  and  the  Pope.  Its 
existence  drove  the  Politiques  more  and  more  into  alliance 
with  the  Huguenots,  who  found  their  political  head  in  Henry 
of  Navarre,  he  having  reasserted  his  Protestant  faith  in  1576. 

The  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew  shattered  the  hopes  of 
William  of  Orange  for  the  speedy  expulsion  of  Spain  from  the 
Netherlands.  The  two  years  following  were  those  of  intens- 
est  struggle,  of  which  William  was  the  soul.  Alva's  generalship 
seemed  at  first  irresistible.  Mons,  Mechlin,  Zutphen,  Naarden, 
and  Haarlem  fell  before  the  Spanish  forces;  but  Alkmaar  they 
failed  to  take,  in  October,  1573.  Alva  was  recalled  at  his  own 
request,  and  was  succeeded,  in  November,  by  Luis  de  Requesens 
(1525?-!  576),  under  whom  the  Spanish  policy  was  substantially 
unchanged.  But  October,  1574,  saw  the  successful  end  of  the 
defense  of  Leyden,  and  it  was  evident  that  the  northern  Nether 
lands  could  not  be  conquered  by  the  forces  then  available  for 
Spain.  In  1576  Requesens  died,  and  the  Spanish  troops 
sacked  Antwerp,  an  event  which  roused  the  southern  provinces 
to  resistance.  The  new  Spanish  commander,  John  of  Austria 
(1545-1578),  was  able  to  effect  little.  Elizabeth  aided  the 
revolted  Netherlands  from  1576.  In  September,  1577,  William 
was  able  to  make  a  triumphal  entry  into  Brussels.  John  of 
Austria  died,  a  disappointed  man,  in  October,  1578;  but  he  was 
succeeded  by  his  nephew,  Alexander  Farnese,  duke  of  Parma 
(1545-1592),  a  general  and  a  statesman  of  commanding  talents. 


PROTESTANTISM  IX  THE  NETHERLANDS    437 

Matters  went  better  for  the  Spanish  cause.  Parma  played  on 
the  jealousies  of  the  Catholic  south  and  the  Calvinist  north. 
The  former  united  in  the  League  of  Arras  for  the  protection  of 
Catholicism  in  January,  1579;  the  latter  replied  the  same 
month  by  the  Union  of  Utrecht.  Protestants  left  the  south  for 
the  north  by  the  thousands,  many  Catholics  went  southward. 
Ultimately  the  ten  southern  provinces  were  saved  by  Parma 
for  Spain,  and  modern  Belgium  is  his  monument.  The  seven 
northern  states  declared  their  independence  of  Spain  in  1581, 
and  though  much  remained  to  be  done  before  all  dangers  were 
passed,  their  freedom  was  so  strongly  intrenched  that  not  even 
the  murder  of  William  of  Orange,  on  July  10,  1584,  by  a  fanatic 
encouraged  by  Parma,  could  overthrow  it. 

During  this  struggle  the  Calvinistic  churches  of  the  Nether 
lands  had  been  shaping.  The  First  National  Synod  had  been 
held  outside  of  Netherlandish  territory,  in  Emden,  in  1571. 
William  of  Orange  had  accepted  Calvinism  two  years  later. 
In  1575  a  university  was  established  in  Leyden,  soon  to  be 
famed  for  its  learning  in  theology  and  the  sciences.  The  Re 
formed  Church  of  the  Netherlands  ,was,  like  the  Huguenot 
Church  of  France,  Presbyterian  in  constitution,  though  its 
degree  of  independence  of  state  control  was  long  a  matter  of 
controversy,  and  varied  with  the  different  provinces.  The 
severity  of  the  struggle  for  national  independence,  the  wish 
to  secure  the  aid  of  all  who  were  friendly  to  it,  and  the  mer 
cantile  spirit  led  the  Protestant  Netherlands  to  a  larger  degree 
of  toleration  than  elsewhere  at  the  time  in  Christendom. 
Catholics  were  not,  indeed,  allowed  public  worship  or  political 
office,  but  they  had  right  of  residence  and  employment.  To  the 
Anabaptists  William  of  Orange  granted  in  1577  the  first  pro 
tection  in  rights  of  worship  that  they  anywhere  received.  This 
degree  of  toleration,  partial  as  it  was,  soon  made  the  Nether 
lands  a  refuge  for  the  religiously  oppressed  and  added  to  the 
strength  of  the  nation. 

Yet  the  death  of  their  wise  leader,  William  of  Orange,  brought 
great  peril  to  the  revolted  Netherlands.  They  did  not  feel  able 
to  stand  alone,  and  offered  their  sovereignty  first  to  Henry  III 
of  France  and  then  to  Elizabeth  of  England.  Both  refused; 
but  Elizabeth  sent  her  favorite,  the  earl  of  Leicester,  in  1585, 
with  a  small  army.  He  now  became  governor-general,  but 
his  rule  was  a  failure,  and  he  returned  to  England  in  1587.  It 


438      ELIZABETH  AND  ENGLISH  CATHOLICS 

looked  as  if  Parma's  skilful  generalship  might  reduce  the 
rebellious  provinces;  but,  fortunately,  Philip  demanded  his 
attention  for  a  larger  enterprise.  The  Spanish  King  had  de 
termined  on  nothing  less  than  the  conquest  of  England. 

At  the  beginning  of  her  reign  Philip  had  aided  Elizabeth  for 
political  reasons  (ante,  p.  413)  but  those  reasons  soon  ceased  to 
apply,  and  Philip  became  her  enemy,  seeing  in  Elizabeth  the 
head  of  that  Protestantism  that  it  was  his  chief  desire  to  over 
throw.  The  early  part  of  Elizabeth's  reign  had  been  surpris 
ingly  free  from  actual  trouble  from  her  Catholic  subjects. 
Mary  "  Queen  of  Scots "  was  the  heir  to  the  throne,  however, 
and  a  constant  centre  of  conspiracy.  In  1569  a  Catholic  re 
bellion  broke  out  in  the  north  of  England,  aided  by  Spanish 
encouragement.  It  was  put  down.  In  1570  there  followed  the 
papal  bull  declaring  Elizabeth  excommunicate  and  deposed. 
In  1571,  a  wide-spread  plot — that  of  Ridolfi — aiming  at  Eliza 
beth's  assassination  was  uncovered.  Elizabeth  was  saved 
by  the  new  turn  of  French  affairs  just  before  the  massacre  of 
St.  Bartholomew  (ante,  p.  435)  and  the  outbreak  of  the  Nether 
lands  rebellion.  Parliament  answered  by  making  attacks  on 
Elizabeth's  person,  orthodoxy,  or  title  to  the  throne  high  trea 
son.  For  the  immediate  present,  however,  England  had  com 
parative  peace.  •'•«•*• 

'  During  Elizabeth's  early  years  the  English  Catholics  had  been 
left  by  Rome  and  their  fellow  believers  on  the  Continent  with 
surprisingly  little  spiritual  aid  or  leadership.  To  remedy  this 
situation,  William  Allen  (1532-1594),  an  able  English  exile 
who  became  a  cardinal  in  1587,  established  a  seminary  in  Douai, 
in  1568,  for  training  missionary  priests  for  England.  His 
students  were  soon  flocking  to  England.  Their  work  was  al 
most  wholly  spiritual,  but  was  looked  upon  with  great  hostility 
by  the  English  authorities.  The  situation  was  intensified 
when,  in  1580,  the  Jesuits  began  a  mission  under  the  leadership 
of  Robert  Parsons  (1546-1610)  and  Edmund  Campion  (1540- 
1581).  Campion  was  seized  and  executed,  though  he  seems  to 
have  intended  no  political  movement.  Not  so  Parsons.  He 
escaped  to  the  Continent,  won  Allen  for  his  plans,  and  began 
a  course  of  intrigue  to  bring  about  a  Spanish  invasion  of  Eng 
land,  a  Catholic  rising  there,  and  the  death  or  dethronement  of 
Elizabeth.  His  work  was  most  unfortunate  for  his  fellow  Catho 
lics.  Most  of  the  priests  laboring  in  England  are  now  known 


THE  SPANISH  ARMADA  439 

to  have  been  free  of  traitorous  designs;  but  it  was  not  so  under 
stood,  and  the  English  authorities  looked  upon  them  all  as 
public  enemies,  and  executed  such  as  its  spies  could  discover. 
Their  work  preserved  a  Roman  Church  in  England,  but  it  was 
carried  on  at  frightful  cost.  Elizabeth  now  sent  an  army  to 
the  Netherlands,  in  1585  (ante,  p.  437),  while  she  encouraged  a 
semipiratical  expedition  under  Sir  Francis  Drake,  the  same 
year,  which  burned  and  plundered  Spanish  settlements  on  the 
Caribbean  and  Gulf  of  Mexico. 

In  1586,  a  new  scheme  was  hatched  against  Elizabeth's  life — 
the  Babington  Plot — in  which  English  spies  discovered  that 
Mary  "Queen  of  Scots"  was  personally  involved.  As  a  con 
sequence,  she  was  executed,  on  February  8,  1587,  after  a  good 
deal  of  wavering  on  the  part  of  Elizabeth.  Philip  now  deter 
mined  on  an  invasion  of  England.  Its  conquest  would  estab 
lish  Catholicism  and  his  own  mastery  there,  and  make  hopeful 
the  reduction  of  the  rebellious  Netherlands.  For  the  work  he 
would  collect  a  great  fleet  which  could  hold  the  North  Sea, 
while  Parma  brought  over  his  seasoned  soldiers  from  the 
Netherlands.  After  infinite  trouble,  the  "Great  Armada" 
got  away  from  Spain  on  July  12,  1588.  The  enterprise  had 
appealed  to  the  religious  zeal  of  the  nation  and  men  of  dis 
tinction  in  unusual  numbers  had  enlisted  for  it.  In  the  estimate 
of  Europe  generally  it  was  believed  invincible;  but,  in  reality, 
it  was  badly  equipped  and  the  sailors  inefficient.  Moreover, 
the  battle  in  which  it  was  about  to  engage  was  a  contest  be 
tween  old  and  new  naval  tactics.  The  Spanish  plan  of  battle 
was  that  of  grappling  and  boarding.  Their  guns  were  light  and 
few,  their  vessels  slow,  though  large.  England  had  developed 
swifter  ships,  armed  with  far  heavier  guns,  able  to  avoid  grap 
pling,  and  to  punish  the  unwieldy  Spaniards  frightfully.  On 
July  21  the  battle  was  joined  off  Plymouth.  Then  followed 
a  week  of  running  fight  up  the  Channel,  culminating  in  a  great 
battle  off  Gravelines  on  the  28th.  The  Spanish  fleet,  hopelessly 
defeated,  fled  north,  to  escape  home  around  Scotland  and  Ire 
land.  Any  crossing  by  Parma  was  impossible.  While  it  is  a 
legend  that  the  Armada  was  defeated  by  storms,  it  really  fell 
before  the  English  gunnery  and  seamanship,  though  a  week 
later,  on  its  retreat  storms  completed  its  wreck.  England  was 
the  rock  on  which  Philip's  plans  of  a  victorious  Catholicism  had 
shattered,  and  they  had  shattered  for  a  cause  which  he  could 


440        THE  LATER  HUGUENOT  STRUGGLES 

scarcely  have  understood.  In  the  contest,  instead  of  the  Catho 
lic  rising  which  he  had  anticipated  in  England,  and  which  men 
like  Allen  and  Parsons  had  predicted,  Catholics  and  Protes 
tants  had  stood  shoulder  to  shoulder  as  Englishmen  against 
Spain. 

While  Philip's  larger  hopes  were  thus  crushed  in  1588,  he 
held  as  tenaciously  as  ever  to  the  plan  of  uprooting  Protestant 
ism  in  France.  The  death  of  Henry  Ill's  brother,  the  duke  of 
Anjou,  in  1584,  left  the  Huguenot  Henry  Bourbon  of  Navarre 
prospective  heir  to  the  throne.  To  prevent  this  succession, 
Philip  and  the  League  entered  into  a  treaty,  in  January,  1585, 
by  which  the  crown  should  go  to  Henry  of  Navarre's  uncle, 
Charles,  Cardinal  Bourbon,  on  Henry  Ill's  death.  In  July, 
1585,  Henry  III  was  forced  by  the  League  to  withdraw  all 
rights  from  the  Huguenots,  and  in  September  a  bull  of  Sixtus 
V  (1585-1590)  declared  Henry  of  Navarre  incapable  of  succeed 
ing  to  the  throne.  The  eighth  Huguenot  War  was  the  result — 
that  known  as  the  "  War  of  the  Three  Henrys,"  from  Henry  III, 
Henry  of  Guise,  the  head  of  the  League,  and  Henry  of  Navarre. 
Paris  was  entirely  devoted  to  Henry  of  Guise.  On  May  12, 
1588,  its  citizens  compelled  Henry  III  to  leave  the  city.  The 
weak  King  saw  no  way  to  resist  the  demands  of  the  League 
and  its  imperious  head  and,  on  December  23,  had  Henry  of 
Guise  treacherously  murdered.  Thirteen  days  later  Catherine 
de'  Medici  closed  her  stormy  life. 

Henry  of  Guise  was  succeeded  in  the  leadership  of  the  League 
by  his  brother  Charles,  duke  of  Mayenne.  Henry  III  now 
made  terms  with  Henry  of  Navarre,  and  the  two  were  jointly 
laying  siege  to  Paris,  when  Henry  III  was  murdered  by  a 
fanatic  monk,  dying  on  August  2,  1589.  But  Henry  of  Navarre, 
or  as  he  now  became,  Henry  IV  of  France  (1589-1610),  was  still 
far  from  secure  on  his  new  throne.  A  brilliant  victory  at 
Ivry,  in  March,  1590,  defeated  the  League,  but  Spanish  troops 
under  Parma's  able  generalship  prevented  his  capture  of  Paris 
that  year,  and  of  Rouen  in  1592.  Not  till  after  the  death  of 
Parma,  on  December  3,  of  the  year  last  named,  was  Henry  IV 
really  master.  And  now,  for  purely  political  reasons,  Henry 
IV  declared  himself  a  Catholic,  being  received  into  the  Roman 
Church  on  July  25,  1593,  though  terms  were  not  concluded  with 
the  Pope  till  more  than  two  years  later.  However  to  be  criti 
cised  morally — and  Henry's  life,  whether  as  a  Protestant  or  as 


THE  HUGUENOTS  441 

a  Catholic,  showed  that  religious  principles  had  little  influence 
over  his  conduct — the  step  was  wise.  It  gave  peace  to  the  dis 
tracted  land.  <  It  pleased  the  vast  majority  of  his  subjects. 
Nor  did  Henry  forget  his  old  associates.  In  April,  1598,  the 
Edict  of  Nantes  was  issued,  by  which  the  Huguenots  were  ad 
mitted  to  all  public  office,  public  worship  was  permitted  where- 
ever  it  had  existed  in  1597,  save  in  Paris,  Rheims,  Toulouse, 
Lyons,  and  Dijon,  and  children  of  Huguenots  could  not  be 
forced  to  receive  Catholic  training.  Certain  fortified  towns 
were  placed  in  Huguenot  hands  as  guarantees. 

The  same  year  (1598),  Philip  II  died,  on  September  13, 
convinced  to  the  end  that  what  he  had  done  was  for  the  service 
of  God,  but  having  failed  in  his  great  life  effort  to  overthrow 
Protestantism. 

The  Huguenot  Churches  now  entered  on  their  most  prosper 
ous  period.  Their  organization  was  completed,  and  their 
schools  at  Sedan,  Saumur,  Montauban,  Nimes,  and  elsewhere 
flourished.  They  were  a  political  corporation  within  the  state. 
As  such,  they  were  opposed  by  the  centralizing  policy  of  Riche 
lieu,  Louis  XIII 's  great  minister.  In  1628,  Rochelle  was  taken 
from  them,  and  their  political  semi-independence  ended.  By 
the  Edict  of  Nimes,  in  1629,  their  religious  privileges  were  pre 
served,  but  they  suffered  increasing  attack  from  Jesuit  and 
other  Catholic  influences  as  the  century  went  on,  till  the  revoca 
tion  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes,  by  Louis  XIV,  in  1685,  reduced 
them  to  a  persecuted,  martyr  church,  to  be  proscribed  till  the 
eve  of  the  French  Revolution,  and  drove  thousands  of  their 
numbers  into  exile,  to  the  lasting  gain  of  England,  Holland, 
Prussia,  and  America. 

SECTION  XIII.      GERMAN  CONTROVERSIES  AND  THE  THIRTY  YEARS* 

WAR 

It  was  the  misfortune  of  Lutheranism  that  it  had  no  other 
bond  of  union  between  its  representatives  in  its  several  terri 
tories  than  agreement  in  "pure  doctrine,"  and  that  differences 
in  apprehension  were  regarded  as  incompatible  with  Christian 
fellowship.  The  original  Lutheran  conception  of  a  faith  which 
constitutes  a  new  personal  relationship  between  God  and  the 
believing  soul  tended  to  shade  off  into  a  belief  which,  as  Me- 
lanchthon  once  defined  it,  is  "an  assent  by  which  you  accept 


442    INTERNAL  CONFLICTS  OF  LUTHERANISM 

all  articles  of  the  faith."  The  result  was  a  new  Protestant 
scholasticism. 

Melanchthon,  influenced  by  humanistic  thought,  gradually 
moved  from  his  original  agreement  with  Luther  to  some  em 
phases  different  from  those  of  his  greater  colleague.  By  1527 
he  had  lost  sympathy  with  Luther's  denial  of  human  freedom 
and  had  reached  the  conclusion  that  salvation  is  only  possible 
through  the  co-operant  action  of  the  will  of  man — a  view  to 
which  the  name  "synergism"  is  usually  given.  By  1535  he 
was  emphasizing  good  works,  not  as  the  price  of  salvation,  but 
as  its  indispensable  evidence.  Regarding  the  Lord's  Supper  he 
came  to  feel  that  Luther  had  overemphasized  Christ's  physical 
presence  and,  without  quite  reaching  Calvin's  position  (ante, 
p.  394),  to  hold  that  Christ  is  given  "not  in  the  bread,  but  with 
the  bread,"  that  is,  to  lay  stress  on  the  spiritual  rather  than  the 
physical  reception.  These  differences  never  made  a  breach 
with  Luther,  partly  because  of  Luther's  generous  affection  for 
his  younger  friend,  and  partly  because  of  Melanchthon's  cau 
tion  in  their  expression,  though  they  made  Melanchthon  un 
comfortable  at  times  in  Luther's  presence  during  that  reformer's 
later  years.  They  were  to  cause  trouble  enough  in  the  Lutheran 
communions. 

One  chief  cause  of  bad  feeling  was  Melanchthon's  reluctant 
consent  to  the  Leipzig  Interim,  in  1548.  To  Melanchthon 
many  Roman  practices  then  reintroduced  were  "non-essen 
tials."  To  Matthias  Flacius  Illyricus  and  Nikolaus  von  Ams- 
dorf,  in  the  security  of  Magdeburg,  nothing  could  be  "non- 
essential"  in  such  a  time  (ante,  p.  380).  They  attacked 
Melanchthon  bitterly,  and  perhaps  he  deserved  some  of  their 
blame.  This  strain  was  soon  increased  by  the  feeling  of  the 
princes  of  the  old  deprived  Saxon  electoral  line  that  Melanch 
thon  by  remaining  in  Wittenberg,  which  now  belonged  to  their 
successful  despoiler,  Moritz,  was  guilty  of  desertion  of  a  family 
which  had  faithfully  supported  him;  and  they  magnified  the 
school  in  Jena,  making  it  a  university  in  1558,  and  appointing 
Flacius  to  one  of  its  professorships. 

Other  theological  disputes  arose.  Andreas  Osiander  (1498- 
1552)  roused  the  opposition  of  all  other  Lutheran  parties  by 
declaring,  with  Paul,  that  the  sinner  receives  actual  righteous 
ness  from  the  indwelling  Christ,  and  is  not  simply  declared 
righteous.  Georg  Major  (1502-1574)  affirmed,  in  essential 


GERMAN  PROTESTANTISM  DIVIDED         443 

agreement  with  Melanchthon,  the  necessity  of  good  works  as 
evidences  of  salvation.  In  1552  he  was  bitterly  assailed  by 
Amsdorf,  who  went  so  far  as  to  assert  that  good  works  are  a 
hindrance  to  the  Christian  life.  The  same  year  saw  a  fierce 
attack  on  Melanchthon's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  by 
Joachim  Westphal  (1510?-1574),  as  crypto-Calvinism,  or  Cal 
vinism  surreptitiously  introduced.  It  is  not  surprising  that 
shortly  before  his  death,  which  occurred  on  April  19,  1560, 
Melanchthon  gave  as  a  reason  for  his  willingness  to  depart,  that 
he  might  escape  "the  rage  of  the  theologians." 

The  Protestant  situation  in  Germany  was  soon  after  further 
turmoiled  by  the  victorious  advance  of  Calvinism  into  the 
southwest.  Frederick  III  (1559-1576),  the  excellent  Elector 
Palatine,  was  led  by  studies  of  the  discussions  regarding  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  adopt  the  Calvinist  position.  For  his  terri 
tories  the  young  theologians,  Kaspar  Olevianus  (1536-1587), 
and  Zacharias  Ursinus  (1534-1583)  prepared  the  remarkable 
Heidelberg  Catechism  in  1562 — the  most  sweet-spirited  and 
experiential  of  the  expositions  of  Calvinism.1  It  was  adopted 
by  the  Elector  in  1563.  But  Calvinism  had  no  protection  under 
the  Peace  of  Augsburg,  of  1555,  and  not  only  Catholics  but 
Lutherans  were  soon  protesting  against  its  toleration. 

The  disputes  in  Lutheranism  continued  with  great  inten 
sity.  In  1573,  Elector  August  of  Saxony  (1553-1586),  having 
assumed  guardianship  over  the  young  princes  of  ducal  Saxony, 
where  the  foes  of  Melanchthon  were  supreme,  drove  out  their 
more  radical  representatives.  Thus  far  electoral  Saxony,  with 
its  Universities  of  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig,  had  followed  the 
Melanchthonian  or  "Philippist"  tradition.  Now,  in  1574,  the 
same  Elector  August,  influenced  by  his  wife,  and  by  an  anony 
mous  volume,  believed  he  had  discovered  a  heretofore  unsus 
pected  Calvinist  propaganda  regarding  the  Lord's  Supper,  in 
his  own  dominions.  He  had  some  of  his  principal  theologians 
imprisoned,  and  one  even  put  to  torture.  "Philippism"  was 
vigorously  repressed. 

Yet  this  struggle  gave  rise,  in  1577,  to  the  last  great  Lutheran 
creed — the  Formula  of  Concord.2  Prepared  by  a  number  of 
theologians,  of  whom  Jakob  Andrea?  (1528-1590)  of  Tubingen, 
Martin  Chemnitz  (1522-1586)  of  Brunswick,  and  Nikolaus 

1  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  3  :  307-355. 

2  Ibid.,  3 :  93-180. 


444  LUTHERAN  ORTHODOXY 

Selnecker  (1530-1592)  of  Leipzig  were  chief,  it  was  put  forth, 
after  infinite  negotiation,  in  1580,  on  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  with  the  approving  signatures  of 
fifty-one  princes,  thirty-five  cities,  and  between  eight  and  nine 
thousand  ministers.  A  number  of  Lutheran  princes  and  cities 
refused  their  approval ;  but  it  undoubtedly  represented  the  de 
cided  majority  of  Lutheran  Germany.  Not  as  extreme  as 
Flacius  and  Amsdorf,  it  represents  the  stricter  Lutheran  in 
terpretation.  It  is  minute,  technical,  and  scholastic  in  marked 
contrast  to  the  freshness  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  half  a 
century  before.  The  period  of  Lutheran  high  orthodoxy  had 
begun,  which  was  to  have  its  classic  exposition  in  1622,  through 
the  Loci  Theologici  of  Johann  Gerhard  (1582-1637)  of  Jena. 
Its  scholasticism  was  as  complete  as  any  in  the  Middle  Ages. 
Under  this  repression,  the  Philippists  turned  increasingly  to 
Calvinism,  and  Calvinism  made  larger  inroads  in  Germany. 
To  the  Palatinate,  Nassau  was  added  in  1577,  Bremen  by  1581, 
Anhalt  in  1597,  and  part  of  Hesse  in  the  same  period.  The 
electoral  house  of  Brandenburg,  from  which  the  present  Ger 
man  imperial  line  is  descended,  became  Calvinist  in  1613, 
though  most  of  the  inhabitants  of  Brandenburg  remained 
Lutheran.  This  transformation  was  often  accompanied  by 
the  retention  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Yet  though  these 
German  "Reformed"  churches  became  Calvinist  in  doctrine 
and  worship,  Calvin's  characteristic  discipline  found  little 
foothold  among  them. 

Protestantism  in  Germany  reached  its  flood-tide  of  territorial 
advance  about  1566.  From  that  time  it  began  to  ebb.  The 
revived  Catholicism  of  the  Counter-Reformation  became  in 
creasingly  aggressive,  led  by  the  Jesuits  and  supported  by  ear 
nest  Catholic  princes  like  the  dukes  of  Bavaria.  Divided  Prot 
estantism  could  not  offer  united  resistance.  In  Bavaria,  Duke 
Albert  V  (1550-1579)  vigorously  applied  the  principle  cujus 
regio,  ejus  religio,  to  crush  his  Protestant  nobility  and  people. 
The  abbot  of  Fulda  similarly  attempted  the  repression  of 
Protestantism  in  his  territories  in  1572.  Successfully  opposed 
for  a  time,  he  effected  his  task  in  1602.  Similar  Catholic  res 
torations  were  effected  in  the  Protestantized  territories  be 
longing  to  the  archbishoprics  of  Mainz  and  Trier.  Under 
Jesuit  leadership  similar  Catholic  advances  were  made  in  other 
bishoprics,  the  inhabitants  of  which  had  embraced  Evangelical 


PARTIES  IN   GERMANY  445 

views.  The  archbishop  of  Cologne,  Gebhard  Truchsess,  one 
of  the  seven  Electors,  proposed  to  marry,  in  1582,  and  em 
braced  Protestantism.  Little  help  came  to  him.  He  was 
forced  from  his  strategically  situated  see,  and  the  territory 
fully  restored  to  Catholicism.  In  Austria  and  Bohemia  the 
situation  became  steadily  more  unfavorable  for  Protestantism ; 
and  there  as  well  as  elsewhere  in  the  empire  the  Jesuit  propa 
ganda  gained  many  individual  converts.  It  was  aggressive 
and  confident  of  ultimate  victory.  The  situation  between 
Protestants  and  Catholics  was  constantly  strained. 

An  event  of  the  years  1606-1607  markedly  increased  this 
bitterness.  The  city  of  Donauworth  was  overwhelmingly 
Protestant,  yet  Catholic  monasteries  had  been  there  allowed. 
A  Catholic  procession  of  1606  was  stoned.  On  imperial  com 
mand,  Maximilian,  the  able  Catholic  duke  of  Bavaria  (1597- 
1651)  occupied  the  city  and  began  a  repression  of  its  Evangelical 
worship.  At  the  Reichstag  of  1608  the  Catholics  demanded 
the  restitution  of  all  ecclesiastical  property  confiscated  since 
1555.  For  this  claim  they  had  the  strict  letter  of  the  law  in 
the  Peace  of  Augsburg ;  but  many  of  these  districts  had  become, 
in  the  two  generations  that  had  elapsed,  solidly  Protestant  in 
population. 

Under  these  circumstances  a  number  of  Protestant  princes 
formed  a  defensive  "Union"  on  May  4,  1608,  headed  by  the 
Calvinist  Elector  Frederick  IV  of  the  Palatinate.  To  it  Catho 
lic  princes,  led  by  Maximilian  of  Bavaria,  opposed  a  "League," 
on  July  10,  1609.  The  strong  Lutheran  states  of  northern 
Germany  were  unwilling  to  join  the  "Union/'  nor  was  the 
Emperor  in  the  "League."  Had  Henry  IV  of  France  lived, 
war  would  probably  have  broken  out  at  this  time;  but  his 
assassination  in  1610  and  the  uncertainty  of  the  imperial  suc 
cession  in  Germany  delayed  it  for  a  time. 

Besides  the  bitter  disputes  between  Catholics  and  Lutherans, 
the  condition  of  Germany  was,  in  many  ways,  one  of  unrest. 
Business  was  bad.  The  debased  coinage  caused  great  suffering, 
the  country  was  growing  impoverished.  The  enforcement  of 
unity  of  belief  in  Protestant  and  Catholic  territories  alike  was 
damaging  to  the  intellectual  life  of  the  people;  while  the 
witchcraft  delusion  which  cost  thousands  of  lives,  and  was 
equally  entertained  by  Catholics  and  Protestants,  was  at  its 
worst  between  1580  and  1620. 


446  THE  THIRTY  YEARS'  WAR 

The  actual  outbreak  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War  came  from 
Bohemia.  That  then  largely  Protestant  land  had  wrung  from 
its  King,  the  Emperor  Rudolf  II  (1576-1612),  in  1609,  a  char 
ter — the  Majestdtsbrief — granting  a  high  degree  of  toleration. 
Rudolf  was  succeeded,  both  as  Emperor  and  King,  by  his 
feeble  brother  Matthias  (King,  1611-1619;  Emperor,  1612- 
1619),  but  he  was  childless,  and  in  1617  his  cousin,  Ferdinand 
of  Styria,  a  strenuous  representative  of  the  Counter-Reforma 
tion,  succeeded  in  securing  recognition  as  Matthias's  successor 
from  the  Bohemian  estates.  Catholic  influences  were  aug 
mented,  and  in  May,  1618,  a  party  of  disaffected  Protestants 
flung  the  two  Catholic  regents  representing  the  absent  Mat 
thias  from  a  high  window  in  Prague.  This  act  put  Bohemia 
into  rebellion  and  began  the  war.  Its  commencement  was 
favorable  for  the  Bohemian  insurgents,  and  in  1619,  after  the 
death  of  Matthias,  they  elected  the  Calvinist,  Frederick  V 
(1610-1632),  Elector  Palatine,  their  King.  The  same  week 
Ferdinand  of  Styria  was  chosen  Emperor  as  Ferdinand  II 
(1619-1637). 

Frederick  found  little  support  outside  of  Bohemia,  and  now 
Maximilian  of  Bavaria  and  a  Spanish  force  from  the  Nether 
lands  came  to  Ferdinand's  assistance.  Under  the  command 
of  a  Walloon  general,  Jan  Tzerklas,  Baron  Tilly  (1559-1632), 
this  Catholic  combination  overwhelmed  the  Bohemian  forces, 
near  Prague,  on  November  8,  1620.  Frederick  fled  the  land. 
The  Majestdtsbrief  was  annulled,  the  property  of  Bohemian 
Protestants  largely  confiscated,  to  the  great  financial  advantage 
of  the  Jesuits,  and  the  Counter-Reformation  enforced  with  a 
high  hand  in  Bohemia,  Moravia,  and  Austria.  Among  those 
enriched  by  the  acquisition  of  confiscated  property  was  one 
destined  to  play  a  great  part  in  the  further  history  of  the  war, 
Albrecht  von  Wallenstein  (1583-1634).  The  "Union"  was 
dissolved.  A  similar  repression  of  Protestantism  now  took 
place  in  Austria. 

Meanwhile  Spanish  troops,  under  Spinola,  had  invaded  the 
Palatinate  in  1620,  and  thither  Tilly  and  the  army  of  the 
"League"  soon  followed.  The  land  was  conquered,  Catholi 
cism  enforced,  and  Frederick's  electoral  title  with  a  good  share 
of  the  Palatinate  transferred  to  Maximilian  of  Bavaria  in  1623. 

Northwestern  Germany,  where  many  bishoprics  had  become 
Protestant  possessions  since  the  Peace  of  Augsburg,  was  now 


WALLENSTEIN  447 

threatened  with  war,  and  the  disasters  to  Protestantism  which 
had  already  happened  aroused  Protestant  foreign  powers. 
Nothing  effective  was  done,  however,  except  by  Christian  IV 
of  Denmark,  to  whom  England  and  the  Protestant  Netherlands 
sent  some  slight  aid.  To  the  Emperor  Ferdinand  the  enmity 
of  the  Danish  King  seemed  formidable,  and  he  therefore  turned 
to  Wallenstein  to  raise  a  new  army  as  imperial  commander-in- 
chief.  This  remarkable  adventurer,  born  a  Protestant,  was 
nominally  a  Catholic,  and  now  the  richest  noble  of  Bohemia. 
A  natural  leader  of  men,  he  raised  an  army  in  which  he  asked 
no  questions  of  race  or  creed,  but  simply  of  capacity  to  fight, 
and  loyalty  to  himself.  He  soon  had  a  force  of  great  efficiency. 

On  April  25,  1626,  Wallenstein  defeated  the  Protestant  army 
under  Ernst  of  Mansfeld,  at  the  Dessau  bridge  over  the  Elbe, 
following  the  beaten  forces  to  Hungary,  whither  they  retreated 
in  the  vain  hope  of  making  effective  stand  in  conjunction  with 
the  Emperor's  enemy,  Bethlen  Gabor,  prince  of  Transylvania. 
On  August  27,  1626,  Christian  IV  of  Denmark  was  beaten  by 
Tilly  and  the  army  of  the  "  League  "  at  Lutter.  These  successes 
were  followed  up  by  the  Catholics  in  1627  and  1628.  Han 
over,  Brunswick,  and  Silesia  were  conquered,  then  Holstein, 
Schleswig,  Pomerania,  and  Mecklenburg.  Wallenstein  found 
it  impossible  to  capture  the  Baltic  seaport  of  Stralsund,  which 
was  aided  by  the  Swedes,  and  thought  it  wise  to  make  peace 
before  the  able  Swedish  King,  Gustavus  Adolphus  (1611-1632), 
might  interfere.  Accordingly,  Christian  IV  was  allowed,  by 
a  treaty  of  May,  1629,  to  keep  his  territories  on  condition  of 
no  further  share  in  German  politics. 

The  Catholics  had  determined  to  reap  the  fruits  of  their 
great  victories.  On  March  6,  1629,  an  imperial  "Edict  of 
Restitution"  ordered  the  restoration  to  Catholic  possession  of 
all  ecclesiastical  property  which  had  come  into  Protestant  hands 
since  1552,  the  expulsion  of  Protestants  from  territories  ruled 
by  Catholics,  and  no  recognition  of  any  Protestants  save  Lu 
therans,  thus  depriving  the  Calvinists  of  any  rights  whatever. 
The  events  of  the  next  few  years  prevented  its  full  execution, 
but  five  bishoprics,  a  hundred  monasteries,  and  hundreds  of 
parish  churches  were,  for  a  time,  thus  transferred.  Many 
more  would  have  been  had  Catholic  success  continued,  and  had 
not  the  Catholics  themselves  quarrelled  over  the  spoils.  These 
disputes,  and  the  jealousy  of  the  "League,"  headed  by  Maxi- 


448  GUSTAVUS  ADOLPHUS 

milian  of  Bavaria,  by  reason  of  the  great  increase  in  imperial 
power  which  Wallenstein  had  effected,  now  led  to  a  success 
ful  demand  by  the  "League"  that  Wallenstein  be  dismissed. 
In  September,  1630,  the  Emperor  was  compelled  to  part  with 
his  able  general. 

Even  before  Wallenstein's  dismissal  an  event  of  prime  im 
portance  had  occurred,  though  its  consequences  were  not  im 
mediately  apparent.  Gustavus  Adolphus  of  Sweden  with  a 
small  army  had  landed  on  the  German  coast  on  June  26,  1630. 
Two  motives  induced  his  interference  in  the  war.  He  came 
undoubtedly  as  a  champion  of  the  Protestant  faith;  but  he 
also  desired  to  make  the  Baltic  a  Swedish  lake,  and  he  saw  in 
the  imperial  attacks  on  the  German  Baltic  seaports  an  imme 
diate  danger  to  his  own  kingdom.  Should  they  be  held  by 
a  hostile  power,  Sweden  would  be  in  great  peril.  Gustavus 
soon  succeeded  in  driving  the  imperial  forces  out  of  Pomerania  ; 
but  he  moved  slowly,  since  he  had  no  adequate  allies.  In 
January,  1631,  however,  he  entered  into  a  treaty  with  France, 
then  under  the  masterful  leadership  of  Louis  XIII's  great  min 
ister,  Armand  du  Plessis,  Cardinal  Richelieu  (1585-1642),  by 
which  considerable  financial  subsidies  were  granted.  Riche 
lieu  had  resumed  the  historic  hostility  of  France  to  the  Habs- 
burgs  of  Spain  and  Austria,  and  the  ancient  French  policy  of 
aiding  their  enemies  for  the  political  advantage  of  the  French 
monarchy,  even  if  those  enemies  were  Protestants.  Gus- 
tavus's  next  important  and  difficult  work  was  to  secure  the 
alliance  of  Brandenburg,  which,  though  Protestant,  had  been 
imperialist,  and  of  Saxony,  which  had  been  neutral.  On  May 
20,  1631,  Tilly  captured  Magdeburg,  the  inhabitants  being 
treated  with  brutal  ferocity. 

This  loss  of  a  great  Protestant  stronghold  was  followed  by 
an  alliance  in  June  between  Gustavus  and  the  Elector  of  Bran 
denburg,  and  in  August  Saxony  threw  off  its  neutrality  and 
joined  the  Swedes.  On  September  17,  1631,  Gustavus,  with 
little  real  help  from  the  Saxons,  won  a  great  victory  over 
Tilly  at  Breitenfeld,  close  by  Leipzig.  The  imperial  power  in 
northern  Germany  crumbled,  and  the  Swedish  King  marched 
victoriously  to  the  Rhine,  establishing  himself  in  Mainz,  while 
the  Saxons  took  Prague.  In  his  extremity,  the  Emperor  called 
on  Wallenstein  once  more  to  raise  an  army,  and  in  April,  1632, 
that  general  was  at  the  head  of  a  redoubtable  force. 


DEATHS  OF  GUSTAVUS  AND  WALLENSTEIN    449 

Gustavus  now  marched  against  Maximilian  of  Bavaria,  de 
feating  Tilly  in  a  battle  near  Donauworth,  in  which  that  com 
mander  was  mortally  wounded.  Munich,  the  Bavarian  capital, 
had  to  surrender  to  the  Swedish  King.  Meanwhile  Wallen- 
stein  had  driven  the  Saxons  out  of  Prague,  and  marched  to 
meet  Gustavus.  For  some  weeks  the  two  armies  faced  each 
other  near  Nuremberg,  but  the  fighting  was  indecisive,  and 
Wallenstein  marched  northward  to  crush  Saxony.  Gustavus 
followed  him,  and  defeated  him  at  Liitzen,  near  Leipzig,  on 
November  16,  1632,  in  a  fierce  battle  in  which  Gustavus  was 
slain.  His  work  was  enduring.  He  had  made  the  Edict  of 
Restitution  a  dead  letter  in  northern  Germany,  and  his  memory 
is  deservedly  cherished  by  German  Protestantism. 

The  control  of  Swedish  affairs  passed  to  the  able  chancellor, 
Axel  Oxenstjerna,  though  the  most  capable  Protestant  general 
was  now  Bernhard  of  Saxe- Weimar  (1604-1639).  In  Novem 
ber,  1633,  Bernhard  captured  the  important  south  German 
city  of  Regensburg,  and  opened  the  line  of  the  Danube  to 
Protestant  advance.  Meanwhile  Wallenstein  had  remained 
comparatively  inactive  in  Bohemia,  partly  jealous  of  large 
Spanish  forces  which  had  been  sent  to  southern  Germany,  and 
partly  intriguing  with  Saxony,  Sweden,  and  France.  Just  what 
he  had  in  mind  is  uncertain,  but  the  most  probable  supposition 
is  that  he  aimed  to  secure  for  himself  the  crown  of  Bohemia. 
His  failure  to  relieve  Regensburg  was  the  last  straw  in  rousing 
the  suspicious  hostility  of  the  Emperor,  and  on  February  25, 
1634,  he  was  murdered  by  his  own  soldiers  as  a  result  of  imperial 
intrigue. 

On  September  5  and  6,  1634,  Bernhard  and  the  Swedish 
troops  were  badly  defeated  at  Nordlingen,  by  combined  imperial 
and  Spanish  forces.  In  its  way  the  battle  was  as  decisive  as 
Breitenfeld  nearly  three  years  before.  That  had  shown  that 
northern  Germany  could  not  be  held  by  the  Catholics;  this 
that  southern  Germany  could  not  be  conquered  by  the  Protes 
tants.  The  war  ought  now  to  have  ended;  on  June  15,  1635, 
peace  was  made  at  Prague  between  the  Emperor  and  Saxony. 
November  12,  1627,  was  taken  as  the  normal  date.  All  eccle 
siastical  properties  should  remain  for  forty  years  in  the  hands 
of  those  who  then  held  them,  and  their  ultimate  fate  should  be 
decided  by  a  court  composed  equally  of  Catholic  and  Protestant 
judges.  No  mention  was  made  of  privileges  for  Calvinists. 


450  THE  PEACE  OF  WESTPHALIA 

To  this  peace  most  of  Protestant  Germany  agreed  in  the  next 
few  weeks. 

Yet  no  peace  was  to  be  had  for  the  wretched  land.  For 
thirteen  years  more  the  war  continued  as  savagely  as  ever.  Its 
original  aims  were  practically  lost,  and  it  became  a  struggle, 
fought  out  on  German  soil  with  the  aid  of  German  parties,  for 
the  aggrandizement  of  Spain,  France,  and  Sweden,  in  which 
France  gained  most.  Ferdinand  II  was  succeeded  by  his  son, 
Ferdinand  III  (1637-1657),  but  the  change  brought  no  real 
alteration  of  the  situation.  Germany  lacked  men  of  real  leader 
ship,  the  only  conspicuous  exception  being  Frederick  William 
the  "Great  Elector"  (1640-1688)  of  Brandenburg,  but  though 
he  succeeded  in  enlarging  his  territorial  possessions,  he  was  too 
young  largely  to  affect  the  course  of  the  war. 

At  last,  after  infinite  negotiation,  the  "Peace  of  Westphalia" 
was  made  on  October  27,  1648.  Sweden  was  firmly  settled  on 
the  German  shore  of  the  Baltic.  Most  of  Alsace  went  to  France. 
The  long-existing  independence  of  Switzerland  was  formally 
acknowledged.  Brandenburg  received  the  archbishopric  of 
Magdeburg  and  the  bishoprics  of  Halberstadt  and  Minden  as 
compensation  for  surrender  of  its  claims  on  part  of  Pomerania 
to  the  Swedes.  Maximilian  of  Bavaria  kept  his  title  of  Elector 
and  part  of  the  Palatinate,  while  the  rest  of  the  Palatinate  was 
restored  to  Karl  Ludwig,  son  of  the  unfortunate  Frederick  V, 
for  whom  a  new  electoral  title  was  created.  More  important 
was  the  religious  settlement.  Here  the  ability  of  the  "Great 
Elector"  secured  the  inclusion  of  the  Calvinists  who,  with  the 
Lutherans,  were  regarded  as  one  party  as  over  against  the 
Catholics.  German  Calvinists  at  last  secured  full  rights.  The 
Edict  of  Restitution  was  fully  abandoned  and  the  year  1624 
taken  as  the  norm.  Whatever  ecclesiastical  property  was 
then  in  Catholic  or  Protestant  hands  should  so  remain.  While 
the  power  of  a  lay  sovereign  to  determine  the  religion  of  his 
subjects  still  remained,  it  was  modified  by  a  provision  that 
where  divided  religious  worship  had  existed  in  a  territory  in 
1624,  each  party  could  continue  it  in  the  same  proportion  as 
then  existed.  Between  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  it  was  agreed 
that  the  norm  should  be  the  date  of  the  Peace,  and  that  a  change 
of  the  lay  ruler  to  one  or  the  other  form  of  Protestantism  there 
after  should  not  affect  his  subjects.  On  the  other  hand,  by 
the  insistence  of  the  Emperor,  no  privileges  were  accorded  to 
Protestants  in  Austria  or  Bohemia. 


RESULTS  OF  THE  THIRTY  YEARS'  WAR     451 

Neither  side  liked  the  Peace.  The  Pope  denounced  it.  But 
all  were  tired  of  the  war,  and  the  Peace  had  the  great  merit 
of  drawing  tfye  lines  between  Catholicism  and  Protestant 
ism  roughly,  but  approximately,  where  they  really  stood.  As 
such,  it  proved  essentially  permanent,  and  with  it  the  period 
of  the  Reformation  on  the  Continent  may  be  considered  closed. 

To  Germany  the  Thirty  Years'  War  was  an  unmitigated  and 
frightful  evil.  The  land  had  been  ploughed  from  end  to  end  for 
a  generation  by  lawless  and  plundering  armies.  Population 
had  fallen  from  sixteen  millions  to  less  than  six.  Fields  were 
waste.  Commerce"  and  manufacturing  destroyed.  Above  all, 
intellectual  life  had  stagnated,  morals  had  been  roughened 
and  corrupted,  and  religion  grievously  maimed.  A  century 
after  its  close  the  devastating  consequences  had  not  been  made 
good.  Little  evidence  of  spiritual  life  was  manifested  in  this 
frightful  time  of  war;  yet  to  it,  in  large  part,  and  reflecting  the 
trust  of  heartfelt  piety  in  its  stress,  belongs  the  work  of  perhaps 
the  greatest  of  Lutheran  hymn-writers,  Paul  Gerhardt  (1607- 
1676).  In  its  earlier  years,  also,  lie  the  chief  activities  of  that 
strange  and  deep  Protestant  mystic,  Jakob  Bohme  (1575-1624), 
of  Gorlitz. 


SECTION  XIV.      SOCINIANISM 

The  Reformation  age  exhibited  a  number  of  departures  from 
traditional  orthodoxy  regarding  the  person  and  work  of  Christ. 
Though  not  characteristic  of  Anabaptists,  in  general,  their 
earliest  manifestation  is  to  be  found  among  such  Anabaptists 
as  Denk  and  Haetzer  (ante,  p.  369) .  Servetus's  radical  opinions 
and  tragic  fate  have  already  been  noted  (ante,  p.  399),  but 
this  ingenious  thinker  founded  no  school  of  disciples.  The 
chief  anti-Trinitarians  of  the  age  came  from  Italy,  where  re 
formed  opinions  took  often  radical  form,  and  where  the  scepti 
cism  of  the  Renaissance  and  the  criticism  of  the  later  schoolmen 
often  blended  with  Anabaptist  readiness  to  see  in  the  meaning 
of  Scripture  other  than  the  traditional  interpretations.  Such 
Italian  radicals  were  Matteo  Gribaldi  (?-1564),  once  professor 
of  law  in  Padua,  whom  Calvin  drove  from  Geneva  in  1559; 
and  Giovanni  Valentino  Gentile  (1520?-!  566),  who  came  to 
Geneva  about  1557,  fled  from  punishment  for  his  views  there, 
and,  after  a  wandering  career,  was  beheaded  in  Bern  in  1566. 
Of  greater  importance  was  Giorgio  Biandrata  (1515?-1588?), 


452  SOCINIANISM 

who  spent  a  year  in  Geneva,  but  found  it  wise  to  leave  for 
Poland  in  1558,  serving  as  physician  to  the  ruling  families  of 
that  land  and  of  Transylvania,  helping  to  found  a  Unitarian 
communion  in  the  latter  region,  which  ultimately  obtained  legal 
standing. 

Those  who  were  destined  to  give  their  name  to  the  movement 
were  the  two  Sozzinis,  uncle  and  nephew.  Lelio  Sozzini  (Soci- 
nus,  1525-1562)  was  of  a  prominent  Sienese  family  and  a  student 
of  law.  His  opinions  were  at  first  Evangelical,  and  he  lived  for  a 
year,  1550-1551,  in  Wittenberg,  enjoying  Melanchthon's  friend 
ship.  Among  other  Swiss  cities,  he  was  well  received  in  Geneva, 
and  settled  in  Zurich,  where  he  died.  Servetus's  execution 
turned  his  attention  to  the  problem  of  the  Trinity,  but  his 
speculations  were  not  made  public  in  his  lifetime.  His  more 
distinguished  nephew  Fausto  (1539-1604)  was  in  Lyons  in  1561 
and  Geneva  in  1562.  Although  already  a  radical  and  influenced, 
though  less  than  has  often  been  represented,  by  his  uncle's  notes 
and  papers,  Fausto  conformed  outwardly  to  the  Roman  Church 
and  lived  from  1563  to  1575  in  Italy.  Thence  he  removed  to 
Basel,  till  he  went  to  Transylvania,  in  1578,  at  the  instance  of 
Biandrata.  The  next  year  saw  him  in  Poland,  where  he  lived 
till  his  death  in  1604. 

Thanks  to  the  labors  of  Fausto  Sozzini  and  others  in  Poland 
the  party  gained  considerable  foothold,  and  expressed  its  belief 
effectively  in  the  Racovian  Catechism,  on  which  Fausto  had 
labored,  published  in  1605,  in  Rakow,  the  city  from  which  it 
took  its  name  and  in  which  these  "Polish  Brethren"  had  their 
headquarters.  The  catechism  is  a  remarkable  combination 
of  rationalistic  reasoning  and  a  hard  supernaturalism.  The 
basis  of  truth  is  the  Scriptures,  but  confidence  in  the  New  Testa 
ment  is  based  primarily  on  the  miracles  by  which  its  promulga 
tion  was  accompanied  and  especially  by  the  crowning  miracle 
of  the  resurrection.  The  New  Testament,  thus  supernaturally 
attested,  guarantees  the  Old  Testament.  The  purpose  of  both 
is  to  show  to  man's  understanding  the  path  to  eternal  life. 
Though  there  may  be  in  them  matters  above  reason,  there 
is  nothing  of  value  contrary  to  reason.  The  only  faith  that 
they  demand  is  belief  that  God  exists  and  is  a  recompenser  and 
a  judge.  Man  is  by  nature  mortal  and  could  not  find  the  way 
to  eternal  life  of  himself.  Hence  God  gave  him  the  Scripture 
and  the  life  and  example  of  Christ.  Christ  was  a  man,  but  one 


SOCINIANISM  453 

who  lived  a  life  of  peculiar  and  exemplary  obedience,  filled  with 
divine  wisdom,  and  was  therefore  rewarded  with  a  resurrection 
and  a  kind  of  delegated  divinity,  so  that  He  is  now  a  hearer  of 
prayer.  The  Christian  life  consists  in  joy  in  God,  prayer  and 
thanksgiving,  renunciation  of  the  world,  humility  and  patient 
endurance.  Its  consequences  are  forgiveness  of  sins  and  eter 
nal  life.  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  to  be  retained  as 
commanded  by  Christ  and  possessing  a  certain  symbolic  value. 
Man's  essential  freedom  is  asserted,  and  original  sin  and  pre 
destination  denied. 

The  most  successful  portion  of  the  Socinian  polemic  was  its 
attack  on  the  satisfaction  theory  of  the  atonement,  which  the 
reformers  had  universally  accepted.  Satisfaction  is  no  demand 
of  God's  nature.  Forgiveness  and  satisfaction  are  mutually 
exclusive  conceptions.  It  is  absolute  injustice  that  the  sins  of 
the  guilty  be  punished  on  the  person  of  the  innocent.  Christ's 
death  is  a  great  example  of  the  obedience  which  every  Christian 
should,  if  necessary,  manifest;  but  that  obedience  was  no 
greater  than  He  o^gj  for  Himself,  and  He  could  not  transfer 
its  value  to  others.  Could  it  be  so  transferred,  in  so  far  as  a 
man  felt  himself  thereby  relieved  from  moral  effort  for  righteous 
ness,  character  would  thereby  be  weakened. 

The  relation  of  Socinianism  to  the  later  Scholasticism,  es 
pecially  that  of  Scotus,  is  undoubted;  but  unlike  that  mediaeval 
system,  it  rejected  all  authority  of  the  church  and  found  its 
source  in  the  Scriptures,  interpreted  by  reason.  It  rebelled 
against  the  prevailing  views  of  human  inability  and  total  de 
pravity.  It  did  not  a  little  to  free  religion  from  the  bondage 
of  dogma  and  to  favor  the  unprejudiced  study  of  Scripture; 
but  it  had  almost  no  conception  of  what  religion  meant  to  Paul, 
Augustine,  or  Luther — a  new,  vital  personal  relationship  be 
tween  the  believing  soul  and  God  through  Christ. 

Suppressed,  largely  through  the  efforts  of  the  Jesuits  in  Po 
land,  Socinianism  found  some  supporters  in  the  Netherlands 
and  even  more  in  England,  where  it  was  to  have  no  little  influ 
ence. 

SECTION  XV.      ARMINIANISM 

The  rigor  of  Calvinism  produced  a  reaction,  especially  in 
Holland,  where  humanistic  traditions  had  never  died  out  and 
where  Anabaptism  was  widely  spread.  It  manifested  itself 


454  ARMINIUS 

in  an  emphasis  on  the  more  practical  aspects  of  religion,  a  dis 
inclination  toward  sharp  creedal  definitions,  and  a  more  tolerant 
attitude.  Such  a  thinker  was  the  Dutch  scholar  Dirck 
Coornhert  (1522-1590);  but  it  came  to  its  fullest  expres 
sion  in  the  work  of  Jacobus  Arminius  (1560-1609)  and  his  dis 
ciples. 

Arminius,  whose  relatives  were  killed  in  the  Netherland  strug 
gle  for  independence,  was  educated  by  friends  at  the  University 
of  Ley  den,  from  1576  to  1582.  He  was  then  sent  to  Geneva 
at  the  expense  of  the  merchant's  guild  of  Amsterdam.  In 
1588,  he  entered  on  a  pastorate  in  Amsterdam,  winning  distinc 
tion  as  a  preacher  and  pastor  of  irenic  spirit.  In  1603  he  was 
chosen  to  succeed  the  eminent  Franz  Junius  (1545-1602),  as 
professor  of  theology  in  Leyden,  where  he  remained  till  his 
death.  Though  indisposed  to  controversy,  he  was  appointed 
in  1589  to  reply  to  Coornhert  and  to  defend  the  "supralapsa- 
rian"  position  against  two  ministers  of  Delft.  The  discussion 
last  named  had  to  do  with  the  order  of  the  divine  purposes. 
Did  God  "decree"  election  and  reprobation,  and  then  permit 
the  fall  as  a  means  by  which  the  decree  could  be  carried  out 
(supra  lapsum)*?  Or  did  He  foresee  and  permit  that  man 
would  fall,  and  then  decree  election  as  the  method  of  saving 
some  (infra  lapsum)*!  As  he  studied  the  questions  involved, 
Arminius  came  to  doubt  the  whole  doctrine  of  unconditional 
predestination  and  to  ascribe  to  man  a  freedom,  which,  however 
congenial  to  Melanchthon  (ante,  p.  442),  had  no  place  in  pure 
Calvinism.  A  bitter  controversy  sprang  up  between  Arminius 
and  his  supralapsarian  colleague  in  the  university,  Franz 
Gomarus  (1563-1641),  and  soon  the  Protestant  Netherlands 
were  widely  involved. 

After  Arminius's  death,  in  1609,  the  leadership  of  the  party 
was  taken  by  the  court  preacher  Johan  Wtenbogaert  (1557- 
1644)  and  by  Simon  Episcopius  (1583-1643),  Arminius's  friend 
and  pupil,  and  soon  to  be  professor  of  theology  in  Leyden. 
By  them  "Arminian"  views  were  systematized  and  developed, 
and  both  opposed  the  current  emphasis  on  minutiae  of  doctrine, 
viewing  Christianity  primarily  as  a  force  for  moral  transforma 
tion.  In  1610,  they  and  other  sympathizers  to  the  number  of 
forty-one,  at  the  instance  of  the  eminent  Dutch  statesman, 
Johan  van  Oldenbarneveldt  (1547-1619),  a  lover  of  religious 
toleration,  drew  up  a  statement  of  their  faith  called  the  "Re- 


ARMINIANISM  455 

monstrance,"  1  from  which  the  party  gained  the  name  "  Re 
monstrants."  Over  against  the  Calvinist  doctrine  of  absolute 
predestination,' it  taught  a  predestination  based  on  divine  fore 
knowledge  of  the  use  men  would  make  of  the  means  of  grace. 
Against;  the  doctrine  that  Christ  died  for  the  elect  only,  it 
asserted  that  He  died  for  all,  though  none  receive  the  benefits 
of  His  death  except  believers.  It  was  at  one  with  Calvinism 
in  denying  the  ability  of  men  to  do  anything  really  good  of 
themselves — all  is  of  divine  grace.  Hence  the  Arminians  were 
not  Pelagians  (ante,  p.  185).  In  opposition  to  the  Calvinist 
doctrine  of  irresistible  grace,  they  taught  that  grace  may  be 
rejected,  and  they  declared  uncertainty  regarding  the  Calvin 
ist  teaching  of  perseverance,  holding  it  possible  that  men  may 
lose  grace  once  received. 

All  the  Protestant  Netherlands  were  speedily  filled  with 
conflict.  The  vast  majority  of  the  people  were  Calvinists, 
and  that  view  had  the  support  of  the  Stadholder  Maurice 
(1588-1625).  The  Remonstrants  were  favored  by  Olden- 
barneveldt,  the  leader  of  the  province  of  Holland,  and  by  the 
great  jurist  and  historian,  the  founder  of  international  law, 
Hugo  Grotius  (1583-1645).  The  dispute  soon  became  involved 
in  politics.  The  Netherlands  were  divided  between  the  sup 
porters  of  "states  rights,"  which  included  the  wealthier  mer 
chant  classes  and  of  which  Oldenbarneveldt  and  Grotius  were 
leaders,  and  the  national  party  of  which  Maurice  was  the  head. 
The  national  party  now  wished  a  national  synod  to  decide  the 
controversy.  The  province  of  Holland,  under  Oldenbarneveldt, 
held  that  each  province  could  decide  its  religious  affairs  and 
resisted  the  proposal.  Maurice,  by  a  coup  d'etat  in  July,  1618, 
overthrew  the  "states-rights"  party.  Oldenbarneveldt,  in 
spite  of  his  great  services,  was  beheaded  on  May  13,  1619, 
and  Grotius  condemned  to  life  imprisonment,  from  which  he 
escaped  in  1621. 

Meanwhile  a  national  synod,  called  by  the  states-general, 
held  session  in  Dort  from  November  13,  1618,  to  May  9,  1619. 
Besides  representatives  from  the  Netherlands,  delegates  from 
England,  the  Palatinate,  Hesse,  Bremen,  and  Switzerland 
shared  in  its  proceedings.  By  the  synod  of  Dort,  Arminianism 
was  condemned  and  "canons,"  aggressively  Calvinistic  in  tone, 
adopted,  which,  together  with  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  and 
1  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  3 :  545-549. 


456  ARMINIANISM,  GROTIUS 

the  Belgic  Confession  (ante,  pp.  433,  443)  became  the  doctrinal 
basis  of  the  Dutch  Church.1  Not  so  extreme  as  individual 
Calvinists — it  did  not  adopt  Gomarus's  supralapsarianl  views 
—the  synod  of  Dort  reached  the  high-water  mark  of  Calvin- 
istic  creed-making. 

Immediately  after  the  synod  of  Dort  the  Remonstrants 
were  banished,  but  on  the  death  of  Maurice,  in  1625,  the 
measures  against  them  became  dead  letters.  They  returned, 
though  they  were  not  to  receive  official  recognition  till  1795.  In 
the  Netherlands  the  party  grew  slowly,  and  still  exists.  Its 
type  of  piety  in  the  home  land  was  prevailingly  intellectual  and 
ethical,  and  was  somewhat  affected  by  Socinianism.  Armin- 
ianism  was  to  have  even  greater  influence  in  England  than  in 
its  home  land,  and  was  to  prove,  in  the  person  of  John  Wesley, 
its  possibility  of  association  with  as  warm-hearted  and  emotional 
a  type  of  piety  as  any  interpretation  of  Christian  truth  can 
exhibit. 

Out  of  this  controversy  there  emerged  from  the  pen  of  Gro- 
tius,  in  1617,  an  important  theory  of  the  atonement.  The 
view  of  Anselm  had  looked  upon  Christ's  death  as  the  satis 
faction  of  the  injured  divine  honor  (ante,  p.  263).  The  reform 
ers  had  viewed  it  as  the  payment  of  penalty  for  sin  to  outraged 
divine  justice  on  behalf  of  those  for  whom  Christ  died,  and  had 
represented  the  exaction  of  penalty  as  a  fundamental  demand 
of  God's  nature,  who  may  be  merciful  but  must  be  just.  To 
Calvinistic  conception,  Christ's  sacrifice  was  sufficient  for  all, 
but  efficient  only  for  the  elect  in  whose  behalf  He  died.  The 
Socinians  had  subjected  these  views  to  a  radical  criticism, 
denying  that  God's  nature  demanded  punishment,  or  that  the 
penalty  due  to  one  could  justly  be  met  by  the  sufferings  of  an 
other  (ante,  p.  453).  To  the  Socinian  criticism  Grotius  now 
replied.  God  is  a  great  moral  ruler.  Sin  is  an  offense  against 
His  law.  Like  a  wise  earthly  governor  He  may  pardon  if  He 
chooses;  but  to  pardon  without  making  evident  the  regard  in 
which  He  holds  His  law  would  be  to  bring  that  law  into  con 
tempt.  Hence  Christ's  death  was  not  a  payment  for  man's  sin 
—that  is  freely  forgiven — but  a  tribute  to  the  sanctity  of  the 
divine  government,  showing  that  while  God  remits  the  penalty, 
He  vindicates  the  majesty  of  His  divine  government.  In  that 
sense  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  no  injustice.  It  is  the  divine 

1  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  3  :  550-597. 


HUGO  GROTIUS  457 

tribute  to  offended  law.  Like  a  wise  earthly  ruler,  God  may 
offer  pardon  to  all  who  will  receive  it  on  such  terms  as  He 
chooses,  for  eiample,  on  condition  of  faith  and  repentance. 
The  ingenuity  of  this  theory  is  undeniable.  It  relieved  the 
embarrassment  of  the  Arminians  caused  by  their  assertion  that 
Christ  died  for  all.  If  that  sacrifice  was  for  all,  and  not  for  the 
elect  only,  and  was  a  payment  of  the  penalty  for  sin,  why  then 
were  not  all  saved?  Grotius  gave  answer  by  denying  the  pay 
ment  of  penalty.  He  also  gave,  in  reply  to  the  Socinians,  a 
definite  reason  for  the  great  sacrifice.  Yet,  of  all  the  the 
ories  of  the  atonement  this  is  the  most  theatrical  and 
least  satisfactory,  for  the  message  of  the  Gospel  is  that 
in  some  true  sense  Christ  died,  not  for  general  justice,  but 
for  me. 

SECTION  XVI.      ANGLICANISM,  PURITANISM,  AND  CONGREGATION 
ALISM    IN   ENGLAND.      EPISCOPACY   AND    PRESBYTERIANISM 
IN  SCOTLAND 

Queen  Elizabeth's  relations  to  the  Catholics  has  been  else 
where  considered  (ante,  p.  438).  Her  position,  at  the  beginning 
of  her  reign,  was  one  of  exceeding  difficulty.  With  her  people 
far  from  united  in  religious  belief,  with  plots  at  home  and  ene 
mies  abroad,  it  was  only  by  political  manoeuvring  of  extreme 
skilfulness  that  she  was  able  to  steer  a  successful  course.  Her 
difficulties  were  increased  by  the  divisions  which  appeared, 
soon  after  the  beginning  of  her  reign,  among  those  who  accepted 
her  rejection  of  Rome.  These  were  augmented,  as  that  reign 
advanced,  by  the  quickened  popular  religious  life  which  was 
transforming  a  nation  that  had  been  previously  rather  spiritu 
ally  apathetic  during  the  changes  under  Henry  VIII,  Edward 
VI,  and  Mary. 

Elizabeth  purposely  made  the  acceptance  of  her  religious 
settlement  as  easy  as  possible.  The  church,  in  its  officers  and 
services,  resembled  the  older  worship  as  fully  as  Protestant 
sentiment  would  tolerate.  All  but  a  fragment  of  its  parish 
clergy  conformed,  and  Elizabeth  was  well  satisfied  to  leave  them 
undisturbed  in  their  parishes,  provided  they  remained  quiet, 
though  their  hearty  acceptance  of  Protestantism  was  often 
doubtful  and  their  capacity  to  preach  or  spiritual  earnestness 
often  dubious.  From  a  political  point  of  view  her  policy  was 


458  THE  RISE  OF  THE  PURITANS 

wise.  England  was  spared  such  wars  as  devastated  France 
and  Germany. 

From  the  first,  the  Queen  was  faced,  however,  by  a  more 
aggressive  Protestantism.  Many  who  had  been  exiles  under 
Mary  had  come  under  the  influence  of  Geneva  or  Zurich  and 
returned  filled  with  admiration  for  their  thoroughgoing  Protes 
tantism.  They  were  men  prevailingly  of  deep  religious  earnest 
ness,  upon  whom  Elizabeth  must  depend  in  her  conflict  with 
Rome,  yet  who,  if  they  could  introduce  the  changes  which  they 
desired,  the  Queen  believed  would  turmoil  a  situation  kept  at 
peace  at  best  with  difficulty.  Yet  the  desires  of  these  men  are 
easily  understandable  from  a  religious  point  of  view.  They 
would  purge  from  the  services  what  they  believed  to  be  rem 
nants  of  Roman  superstition,  and  procure  in  every  parish  an 
earnest,  spiritual-minded,  preaching  minister.  In  particular, 
they  objected  to  the  prescribed  clerical  dress  as  perpetuating 
in  the  popular  mind  the  thought  of  the  ministry  as  a  spiritual 
estate  of  peculiar  powers,  to  kneeling  at  the  reception  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  as  implying  adoration  of  the  physical  presence 
of  Christ  therein,  to  the  use  of  the  ring  in  marriage  as  continuing 
the  estimate  of  matrimony  as  a  sacrament,  and  the  sign  of  the 
cross  in  baptism  as  superstitious.  Because  they  thus  desired 
to  purify  the  church,  this  party,  by  1564,  was  popularly  called 
the  "Puritans." 

Led  by  Laurence  Humphrey  (1527-1590),  president  of  Mag 
dalen  College,  Oxford,  and  Thomas  Sampson  (1517-1589), 
dean  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  both  Marian  exiles,  the  earliest 
Puritan  discussion  was  over  the  use  of  the  prescribed  garments 
—the  "Vestiarian  Controversy."  Cambridge  University  sym 
pathized  largely  with  the  Puritans.  But  in  this  matter  the 
Queen's  policy  was  strongly  opposed  to  modification,  and  in 
1566  Archbishop  Parker  issued  his  "Advertisements/'1  by 
which  all  preachers  were  required  to  secure  fresh  licenses  from 
the  bishops,  controversial  sermons  forbidden,  kneeling  at  com 
munion  required,  and  clerical  dress  minutely  prescribed.  Under 
these  regulations  a  number  of  Puritan  clergy  were  deprived  of 
their  positions. 

Among  men  who  had  learned  in  Zurich  and  Geneva  to  feel 
that  any  worship  for  which  Biblical  warrant  could  not  be  found 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  Documents  Illustrative  of  English  Church  History,  pp. 
467-475. 


DESIRES  OF  THE  PURITANS  459 

is  an  insult  to  the  divine  majesty,  this  led  to  a  further  position— 
a  question  whether  an  ecclesiastical  system  which  deposed 
ministers  who  'refused  to  use  vestments  and  ceremonies  not 
capable  of  Scriptural  demonstration  was  that  which  God  in 
tended  for  His  church.  Furthermore,  as  they  read  their  New 
Testament  through  Genevan  spectacles,  they  saw  there  a 
definite  pattern  of  church  government  quite  unlike  that  exist 
ing  in  England,  in  which  effective  discipline  was  maintained  by 
elders,  ministers  were  in  office  with  the  consent  of  the  congrega 
tion,  and  there  was  essential  spiritual  parity  between  those 
whom,  as  Calvin  said,  the  Scriptures  in  describing  them  as 
"bishops,  presbyters,  and  pastors,"  "uses  the  words  as  synony 
mous."  1  It  was  the  same  conviction  as  to  the  essential  equality 
of  those  in  spiritual  office  that  nerved  Scottish  Presbyterianism 
to  its  long  fight  with  "prelacy." 

The  representative  and  leader  of  this  second  stage  of  Puri 
tanism  was  Thomas  Cartwright  (1535?-1603).  As  Lady  Mar 
garet  professor  of  divinity  in  Cambridge  University  in  1569,  he 
advocated  the  appointment  of  elders  for  discipline  in  each 
parish,  the  election  of  pastors  by  their  people,  the  abolition  of 
such  offices  as  archbishops  and  archdeacons,  and  the  reduction 
of  clergy  to  essential  parity.  That  was  practical  Presbyterian- 
ism,  and  the  more  radical  Puritans  moved  henceforth  in  the 
Presbyterian  direction.  The  more  moderate  of  the  party  con 
tinued  their  opposition  to  ceremonies  and  vestments  without 
joining  with  Cartwright  in  a  demand  that  the  constitution  of 
the  English  Church  be  altered.  Cartwright's  arguments 
aroused  the  opposition  of  the  man  who  was  to  be  the  chief 
enemy  of  the  early  Puritans,  John  Whitgift  (1530-1604). 
Against  Cartwright's  assertion  of  jure  divirw  Presbyterianism, 
Whitgift  was  far  from  asserting  a  similar  authority  for  episco 
pacy.  To  him  it  was  the  best  form  of  church  government,  but 
he  denied  that  any  exact  pattern  is  laid  down  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  affirmed  that  much  is  left  to  the  judgment  of  the  church. 
By  Whitgift's  influence,  Cartwright  was  deprived  of  his.  pro 
fessorship  in  1570,  and  the  next  year  driven  from  the  university. 
He  lived  thenceforth  a  wandering  and  persecuted  life,  much 
of  the  time  on  the  Continent,  but  laboring  indefatigably  to 
further  the  Presbyterian  Puritan  cause. 

The  changes  advocated  by  Cartwright  were  presented  in  an 
1  Institutes,  4 :  3,  8. 


460  DESIRES  OF  THE  PURITANS 

extreme  but  popularly  effective  pamphlet  entitled  An  Admo 
nition  to  the  Parliament,  written  by  two  London  ministers,  John 
Field  (?-1588)  and  Thomas  Wilcox  (1549?-1608),  in  1572. 
To  it  Whitgift  replied,  and  was  answered,  in  turn,  by  Cart- 
wright.  Presbyterian  Puritanism  was  growing.  To  those  more 
moderate  than  Cartwright,  it  seemed  that  it  would  require 
relatively  little  alteration  of  the  existing  churchly  constitution. 
The  obnoxious  ceremonies  could  be  discarded,  the  Prayer 
Book  revised,  elders  instituted  in  parishes,  and  the  bishops 
preserved  as  presiding  officers  of  the  churches  of  each  diocese 
organized  as  a  synod,  primi  inter  pares.  A  voluntary  local 
classis,  a  kind  of  presbytery,  was  organized  by  Puritan  ministers 
in  Wandsworth,  near  London,  in  1572;  and  similar  organiza 
tions  sprang  up  elsewhere.  Meeting  of  ministers  for  preaching 
and  discussion — the  so-called  "prophesyings" — were  begun 
about  the  same  time.  The  radical  Puritan  cause  was  ad 
vanced  by  the  Declaration  of  Ecclesiastical  Discipline,  published 
by  a  young  Cambridge  scholar,  Walter  Travers  (1548?-1635), 
in  1574.  This  soon  became,  in  a  sense,  the  Puritan  standard. 
All  this  was  aided  by  the  succession  to  the  archbishopric  of 
Canterbury,  on  Parker's  death,  in  1576,  of  Edmund  Grindal 
(1519?-1583),  who  sympathized  with  the  Puritans  and  was 
suspended  for  his  conscientious  objections  to  the  Queen's  orders 
to  forbid  "prophesy ings." 

Cartwright  and  his  fellow  Puritans  opposed  all  separation 
from  the  Church  of  England.  Their  thought  was  to  introduce 
as  much  of  Puritan  discipline  and  practice  as  possible,  and  wait 
for  its  further  reformation  by  the  government.  Such  a  hope 
did  not  seem  vain.  Within  a  generation,  the  constitution  and 
worship  of  the  church  of  the  land  had  been  four  times  altered. 
Might  it  not  soon  be  changed  for  a  fifth  time  into  what  the 
Puritans  deemed  a  more  Scriptural  model?  They  would  agi 
tate  and  wait.  This  remained  the  programme  of  the  Puritans 
generally.  Naturally,  there  were  some  to  whom  this  delay 
seemed  unjustifiable.  They  would  establish  what  they  con 
ceived  to  be  Scriptural  at  once.  These  were  the  Separatists  or 
early  Congregationalists. 

On  June  19,  1567,  the  authorities  in  London  seized  and  im 
prisoned  the  members  of  such  a  Separatist  congregation,  as 
sembled  for  worship  ostensibly  to  celebrate  a  wedding.  This 
company  had  rejected  the  Church  of  England  and  had  chosen  at 


BEGINNINGS  OF  CONGREGATIONALISM      461 

least  two  officers — Richard  Fitz,  minister,  and  Thomas  Rowland, 
deacon.  It  was  evidently  moving  in  the  Congregational  direc 
tion.  Whether  remnants  of  this  congregation  maintained  a 
subsequent  corporate  existence  is  not  known. 

The ;  first  really  conspicuous  advocate  of  Congregational 
principles  in  England  was  Robert  Browne  (1550?-1633),  a 
student  in  Cambridge  in  the  troublous  time  of  Cartwright's 
brief  professorship,  and  a  graduate  there  in  1572.  At  first  an 
advanced  Presbyterian  Puritan,  he  came  to  adopt  Separatist 
principles  by  about  1580,  and  in  connection  with  a  friend,  Robert 
Harrison,  founded  a  Congregational  Church  in  Norwich  in 
1581.  As  a  result  of  his  preaching  he  found  himself  speedily 
in  prison.  He  and  the  majority  of  his  congregation  sought 
safety  in  Middelburg,  in  the  Netherlands.  Here  in  Middel- 
burg  Browne  had  printed,  in  1582,  a  substantial  volume  con 
taining  three  treatises.  One,  directed  against  the  Puritans 
who  would  remain  in  the  Church  of  England,  bears  its  burden 
in  its  title:  A  Treatise  of  Reformation  without  Tarying  for  anie, 
and  of  the  Wickednesse  of  those  Preachers  which  will  not  reforme 
.  .  .  till  the  Magistrate  commaunde  and  compel!  them.  Another,  A 
Booke  which  sheweth  the  Life  and  Manners  of  all  true  Christians, 
presented  the  fundamental  principles  of  Congregationalism. 

According  to  Browne,  the  only  church  is  a  local  body  of 
experiential  believers  in  Christ,  united  to  Him  and  to  one  an 
other  by  a  voluntary  covenant.  Such  a  church  has  Christ 
as  its  immediate  head,  and  is  ruled  by  officers  and  laws  of  His 
appointment.  Each  is  self-governing  and  chooses  a  pastor,  a 
teacher,  elders,  deacons,  and  widows,  whom  the  New  Testa 
ment  designates;  but  each  member  has  responsibility  for  the 
welfare  of  the  whole.  No  church  has  authority  over  any  other, 
but  each  owes  to  other  brotherly  helpfulness.  The  system  thus 
outlined  was  essentially  democratic — far  more  so  than  early 
Congregationalism  in  general  was  actually  to  be  in  its  practice. 

Browne's  system  so  closely  resembles  the  views  of  the  Ana 
baptists  (ante,  p.  368)  that  some  connection  in  thought  at  least 
seems  well-nigh  certain.  Norwich,  also,  was  largely  populated 
by  Dutch  refugees.  Yet  Browne  displayed  no  conscious  in 
debtedness  to  the  Anabaptists,  and  did  not  reject  infant  baptism. 
His  emphasis  on  the  covenant  as  the  constitutive  element  in  the 
church  is  much  more  positive  than  among  the  Anabaptists. 
The  probable  conclusion  is  that  Browne  owed  much  to  a  some- 


462  PURITANS  AND  ANGLICANS 

what  widely  diffused  Anabaptist  way  of  thinking,  rather  than 
borrowed  directly  from  any  Anabaptist  source.  Browne's  own 
stay  in  Holland  was  brief.  His  church  was  turmoiled,  and  after 
a  period  in  Scotland  he  returned  to  England,  where  he  con 
formed,  outwardly  at  least,  to  the  Established  Church  in  Octo 
ber,  1585,  and  spent  his  long  remaining  life,  from  1591  to  1633, 
in  its  ministry.  With  such  a  record  of  abandonment  of  early 
principles  it  is  no  wonder  that  early  Congregationalists  re 
sented  the  name  "Brownists";  yet  Congregationalism  has 
never  been  more  clearly  enunciated  than  by  him. 

Under  Grindal's  archbishopric  many  of  the  Puritan  minis 
ters  ceased  to  use  the  Prayer  Book  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  the 
establishment  of  the  "Holy  Discipline,"  as  that  set  forth  in 
Traver's  Declaration  of  Ecclesiastical  Discipline  was  called, 
went  on  apace.  Grindal  was  succeeded,  however,  from  1583 
to  1604,  in  the  see  of  Canterbury  by  Whitgift.  A  thorough 
Calvinist  in  theology,  he  was  a  martinet  in  discipline,  and  in 
this  had  the  hearty  support  of  the  Queen.  He  promptly 
issued  articles  enjoining  full  approval  and  use  of  the  Prayer 
Book,  prescribing  clerical  dress,  and  forbidding  all  private  re 
ligious  meetings;1  Thenceforth  the  hand  of  repression  rested 
heavily  on  Puritans  and  Separatists.  This  hostility  was  embit 
tered  by  the  secret  publication  of  a  telling  satire  against  the 
bishops,  coarse  and  unfair,  but  extremely  witty  and  exasperat 
ing,  plainly  of  Puritan  origin,  though  disliked  by  the  Puritans 
generally.  Issued  in  1588-1589,  and  known  as  the  "Martin 
Marprelate  Tracts,"  their  authorship  has  never  been  fully  as 
certained,  though  probabilities  point  to  Job  Throckmorton 
(1545-1601),  a  Puritan  layman. 

Puritan  and  Separatist  assertion  of  the  divine  character  of 
their  systems  was  now  rapidly  producing  a  change  of  attitude 
in  the  leaders  of  their  opponents,  who  may  be  called  Anglicans. 
In  his  sermon  at  Paul's  Cross,  in  London,  in  1589,  Richard 
Bancroft  (1544-1610),  to  be  Whitgift's  successor  as  archbishop, 
not  merely  denounced  Puritanism,  but  affirmed  a  jure  divino 
right  for  episcopacy.  Adrian  Saravia  (1531-1613),  a  Walloon 
theologian  domiciled  in  England,  advocated  the  same  view 
a  year  later,  as  did  Thomas  Bilson  (1547-1616),  soon  to  be 
bishop  of  Winchester,  in  his  Perpetual  Government  of  Christ's 
Church,  in  1593.  Less  extreme  was  the  learned  Richard 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  481-484. 


CONGREGATIONAL  MARTYRS  463 

Hooker  (1553?-!  600),  in  his  Laws  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  of 
1594.  Though  episcopacy  is  grounded  in  Scripture,  his  chief 
argument  in  its  favor  is  its  essential  reasonableness,  over  against 
the  extreme  Biblicism  of  the  Puritans.  The  foundations  of  a 
high-church  party  had  been  laid. 

The  repression  of  Puritanism  and  Separatism  was  greatly 
aided  by  the  court  of  the  High  Commission.  From  Henry  VIIFs 
time  it  had  been  a  favorite  royal  expedient  to  control  ecclesi 
astical  affairs  or  persons  by  commissions  appointed  to  investi 
gate  and  adjudicate  without  being  bound  by  the  ordinary  proc 
esses  of  law.  The  system  was  a  gradual  growth.  Elizabeth 
developed  it,  and  made  it  more  permanent ;  but  it  did  not  be 
come  a  thoroughly  effective  ecclesiastical  court  till  Bancroft 
had  become  one  of  its  members  in  1587.  By  1592  it  had  fully 
attained  its  powers.  The  presumption  of  guilt  was  against  the 
accused,  and  the  nature  of  proof  was  undefined.  It  could 
examine  and  imprison  anywhere  in  England,  and  had  become 
the  right  arm  of  episcopal  authority. 

Meanwhile,  Congregationalism  had  reappeared.  In  1587 
Henry  Barrowe  (1550?-1593),  a  lawyer  of  London,  and  John 
Greenwood  (?-1593),  a  clergyman,  were  arrested  for  holding 
Separatist  meetings  in  London.  From  their  prison  they 
smuggled  manuscripts  which  appeared  as  printed  treatises  in 
Holland,  attacking  Anglicans  and  Puritans  alike,  and  explain 
ing  Congregational  principles.  A  number  were  won,  including 
Francis  Johnson  (1562-1618),  a  Puritan  minister.  In  1592  a 
Congregational  Church  was  formed  in  London  with  Johnson  as 
its  "pastor"  and  Greenwood  as  its  "teacher,"  and  on  April  6 
of  the  next  year  Barrowe  and  Greenwood  were  hanged  for 
denying  the  Queen's  supremacy  in  ecclesiastical  matters.  The 
same  year  Parliament  passed  a  statute  proclaiming  banishment 
against  all  who  challenged  the  Queen's  ecclesiastical  authority, 
refused  to  go  to  church,  or  were  present  at  some  "conventicle" 
where  other  than  the  lawful  worship  was  employed.1  Under 
its  terms  most  of  the  London  Congregationalists  were  com 
pelled  to  seek  refuge  in  Amsterdam,  where  Johnson  continued 
their  pastor  and  Henry  Ainsworth  (1571-1623?)  their  teacher. 

The  closing  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign  also  saw  the  begin 
nings  of  a  reaction  from  the  dominant  Calvinism.  By  1595  a 
controversy  broke  out  in  Cambridge,  where  Peter  Baro  (1534- 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  492-498. 


464  JAMES  I  AND  THE  PURITANS 

1599)  had  been  advocating  views  that  would  later  have  been 
called  Arminian.  This  discussion  led  to  the  publication,  un 
der  Whitgift's  auspices  of  the  strongly  Calvinistic  "Lambeth 
Articles"  j1  but  the  tendency  to  criticise  Calvinism,  thus  started, 
increased,  and  through  opposition  to  Puritanism,  in  part,  was 
to  become  more  and  more  characteristic  of  the  Anglican  party. 

Elizabeth  closed  her  long  reign  on  March  24,  1603,  and  was 
succeeded  by  Mary  "Queen  of  Scots's"  son,  James  I  (1603- 
1625),  who  had  already  held  the  Scottish  throne  since  1567,  as 
James  VI.  All  religious  parties  in  England  looked  with  hope 
to  his  accession,  the  Catholics  because  of  his  parentage,  the 
Presbyterian  Puritans  by  reason  of  his  Presbyterian  education, 
and  the  Anglicans  on  account  of  his  high  conceptions  of  divine 
right  and  his  hostility  to  Presbyterian  rule,  which  had  devel 
oped  in  his  long  struggles  to  maintain  the  power  of  the  crown 
in  Scotland.  Only  the  Anglicans  read  his  character  correctly. 
"No  bishop,  no  King/'  was  his  favorite  expression.  In  claim 
and  action  he  was  no  more  arbitrary  than  Elizabeth ;  but  the 
country  would  bear  much  from  a  popular  and  admired  ruler 
which  it  resented  from  a  disliked,  undignified,  and  unrepresen 
tative  sovereign. 

On  his  way  to  London,  in  April,  1603,  James  I  was  presented 
with  the  "Millenary  Petition,"  2  so-called  because  it  was  sup 
posed  to  bear  a  thousand  signatures,  though  really  unsigned. 
It  was  a  very  moderate  statement  of  the  Puritan  desires.  As 
a  consequence,  a  conference  was  held  at  Hampton  Court,  in 
January,  1604,  between  bishops  and  Puritans,  in  the  royal 
presence — the  leading  Anglican  disputant,  besides  the  King 
himself,  being  Bancroft,  now  bishop  of  London.  No  changes 
of  importance  desired  by  the  Puritans  were  granted,  except  a 
new  translation  of  the  Bible,  which  resulted  in  the  "Author 
ized  Version"  of  1611.  They  were  ordered  to  conform.  This 
Anglican  victory  was  followed  by  the  enactment  by  convoca 
tion,  with  royal  approval,  in  1604,  of  a  series  of  canons  elevating 
into  church  law  many  of  the  declarations  and  practices  against 
which  the  Puritans  had  objected.  The  leading  spirit  here  was 
Bancroft,  who  was  soon  to  succeed  Whit  gift  in  the  see  of 
Canterbury  (1604-1610).  The  Puritans  were  now  thoroughly 
alarmed,  but  Bancroft  was  more  considerate  in  government 

1  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  3 :  523. 

2  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  508-511. 


SEPARATIST  MOVEMENTS  465 

than  his  declarations  and  previous  conduct  would  have  proph 
esied,  and  only  a  relatively  small  number  of  ministers,  estimated 
variously  from  forty-nine  to  three  hundred,  were  actually  de 
prived.  Anglicanism  was  gaining  strength,  also,  from  a  gradual 
improvement  in  the  education  and  zeal  of  its  clergy,  which 
Whitgift  and  Bancroft  did  much  to  foster — a  conspicuous  ex 
ample  being  the  learned,  saintly,  and  eloquent  Lancelot  An- 
drewes  (1555-1626),  who  became  bishop  of  Chichcster  in  1605. 

Bancroft's  successor  as  archbishop  was  George  Abbot  (1611- 
1633),  a  man  of  narrow  sympathies  and  strong  Calvinism,  un 
popular  with  the  mass  of  the  clergy,  and  himself  in  practical 
disgrace  in  the  latter  part  of  his  episcopate.  The  loss  of  such 
strong  hands  as  those  of  Whitgift  and  Bancroft  was  felt  by  the 
Anglicans,  and  under  these  circumstances,  not  only  Puritanism 
but  Separatism  made  decided  progress. 

A  Separatist  movement  of  far-reaching  ultimate  consequences 
had  its  beginnings  probably  about  1602,  in  the  work  of  John 
Smyth  (?-1612),  a  former  clergyman  of  the  establishment, 
who  had  adopted  Separatist  principles  and  now  gathered  a 
congregation  in  Gainsborough.  Soon  adherents  were  secured 
in  the  adjacent  rural  districts,  and  a  second  congregation 
gathered  in  the  home  of  William  Brewster  (1560?-! 644),  at 
Scrooby.  Of  this  Scrooby  body  William  Bradford  (1590-1657) 
was  a  youthful  member.  From  about  1604  it  enjoyed  the  lead 
ership  of  the  learned  and  sweet-tempered  John  Robinson 
(1575?-1625),  like  Smyth  a  former  clergyman  of  the  Puritan 
party  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  like  him  led  to  believe 
Separatism  the  only  logical  step.  The  hand  of  authority  being 
heavy  upon  them,  the  Gainsborough  congregation,  led  by 
Smyth,  were  self-exiled  to  Amsterdam,  probably  in  1607. 
That  centred  in  Scrooby,  under  Robinson  and  Brewster's  lead 
ership,  followed  the  same  road  to  Holland,  in  1607  and  1608, 
but  established  itself  in  1609  in  Leyden. 

At  Amsterdam  Smyth  came  into  contact  with  the  Men- 
nonites,  and  by  his  own  study  was  convinced  that  their  posi 
tion  rejecting  infant  baptism  was  that  of  primitive  Christianity. 
In  1608  or  1609  he  therefore  baptized  himself  by  pouring,  and 
then  the  others  of  his  church.  Of  unstable  disposition,  Smyth 
soon  after  quarrelled  with  his  flock,  but  two  of  its  members, 
Thomas  Helwys  (1550?-1616?),  and  John  Murton  (?-1625?), 
led  the  return  of  a  considerable  portion  to  England,  and  estab- 


466    ENGLISH  BAPTISTS.    THE  PILGRIM  FATHERS 

lished  in  London,  in  1611  or  1612,  the  first  permanent  Baptist 
congregation  on  English  soil.  In  the  contemporary  Dutch 
controversies  they  had  adopted  the  Arminian  position,  and 
were  therefore  known  as  "General  Baptists."  Apparently 
some  remnants  of  the  exiled  Congregational  Church  of  John 
son  and  Greenwood  (ante,  p.  463)  kept  up  an  organization  in 
London,  but  the  effective  permanent  replanting  of  Congrega 
tionalism  in  England  was  when  Henry  Jacob  (1563-1624),  who 
had  been  of  Robinson's  congregation  in  Leyden,  established 
a  church  in  Southwark  in  1616.  From  this  church  a  portion 
seceded  in  1633,  on  Baptist  principles.  They  were  Calvinists, 
and  hence  named  "Particular  Baptists."  By  them  immersion 
was  practised  about  1641,  and  thence  spread  to  all  English 
Baptists. 

The  chief  event  in  the  history  of  the  Leyden  Congregational 
Church  was  the  decision  to  send  its  more  active  minority  to 
America.  Robinson  reluctantly  stayed  with  the  majority. 
In  1620,  after  infinite  negotiation,  the  "Pilgrim  Fathers" 
crossed  the  Atlantic  in  the  Mayflower,  under  the  spiritual 
leadership  of  their  "elder,"  William  Brewster,  and  on  Decem 
ber  21  laid  the  foundations  of  the  colony  of  Plymouth,  of 
which  William  Bradford  was  soon  to  be  the  wise  and  self- 
forgetful  governor.  Congregationalism  was  thus  planted  in 
New  England. 

Meanwhile  under  Abbot's  less  vigorous  government  Puri 
tanism  was  establishing  "lectureships,"  the  successors  of  the 
old-time  "prophesy ings."  In  parishes  where  the  legal  incum 
bent  was  hostile,  or  unwilling,  or  unable  to  preach — sometimes 
with  the  consent  of  the  incumbent  himself — Puritan  money 
was  financing  afternoon  preachers,  of  strongly  Puritan  cast. 
Puritanism  had  always  laid  stress  on  a  strict  observance  of 
Sunday.  Its  Sabbatarian  tendencies  were  augmented  by  the 
publication,  in  1595,  by  Nicholas  Bownde  (?-1613)  of  his 
Doctrine  of  the  Sabbath,  urging  the  perpetuity  of  the  fourth 
commandment  in  Jewish  rigor.  Much  Puritan  hostility  was, 
therefore,  roused — and  that  of  Archbishop  Abbot  also — when 
James  I  issued  his  famous  Declaration  of  Sports,  in  1618,  in 
which  he  commended  the  old  popular  games  and  dances  for 
Sunday  observance.  To  the  Puritan  it  seemed  a  royal  com 
mand  to  disobey  the  will  of  God.  Puritanism  was  steadily 
growing  as  a  political  force  all  through  James's  reign.  The 


JAMES  FS  POLICY  IN  SCOTLAND  467 

King's  arbitrary  treatment  of  Parliament,  his  failure  to  support 
effectively  the  hard-pressed  Protestants  of  Germany  in  the 
opening  struggles  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  and  above  all, 
his  ultimately  unsuccessful  attempts  to  procure  marriage  with 
a  Spanish  princess  for  his  heir,  were  increasingly  resented,  and 
drove  the  Commons  into  a  steadily  growing  political  sympathy 
with  Puritanism,  the  more  that  the  Anglicans  were  identified 
largely  with  the  royal  policies.  By  the  end  of  his  reign,  in 
1625,  the  outlook  was  ominous. 

Nor  was  James's  policy  in  his  northern  kingdom  less  fraught 
with  future  mischief.  During  James's  childhood  the  Regent 
Morton,  in  1572,  had  secured  the  nominal  perpetuation  of  the 
episcopate  largely  as  a  means  of  getting  possession  of  church 
lands.  There  were,  therefore,  bishops  in  name  in  Scotland. 
Their  power  was  slight.  In  1581,  under  the  lead  of  Andrew 
Melville,  the  General  Assembly  had  given  full  authority  to 
presbyteries  as  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  had  ratified  the  Presby 
terian  Second  Book  of  Discipline.  In  spite  of  James's  opposi 
tion,  the  King  and  the  Scottish  Parliament  had  been  compelled  to 
recognize  this  Presbyterian  system  as  established  by  law  in  1592. 

Yet  James  was  determined  to  substitute  a  royally  controlled 
episcopacy  for  this  largely  self-governing  Presbyter iariism. 
He  had  the  means  at  hand  in  the  nominal  bishops.  By  1597 
he  was  strong  enough  to  insist  that  he  alone  had  the  right  to 
call  general  assemblies,  and  his  encroachments  on  Presby- 
terianism  steadily  grew.  Melville  and  other  leaders  were 
exiled.  The  year  1610  saw  a  notable  royal  advance.  James 
established  two  high  commission  courts  for  ecclesiastical  cases 
in  Scotland,  similar  to  that  of  England,  and  each  with  an 
archbishop  at  its  head ;  and  he  procured  from  English  bishops 
episcopal  consecration  and  apostolical  succession  for  the  hitherto 
irregular  Scottish  episcopate.  A  packed  Parliament,  in  1612, 
completed  the  process  by  giving  full  diocesan  jurisdiction  to 
these  bishops.  Thus  far  there  had  been  no  changes  in  worship, 
but  nine  years  later  the  King  forced  through  a  cowed  General 
Assembly,  and  then  through  Parliament,  kneeling  at  com 
munion,  confirmation  by  episcopal  hands,  the  observation  of 
the  great  church  festivals,  private  communion  and  private 
baptism.  Scotland  was  seething  with  religious  discontent 
when  James  died. 

James  I  was  succeeded,  in  England  and  Scotland,  by  his  son 


468  CHARLES  I  AND  LAUD 

Charles  I  (1625-1649).  A  man  of  more  personal  dignity  than 
his  father,  of  pure  family  life,  and  of  sincere  religion,  he  was 
quite  as  exalted  as  James  in  his  conceptions  of  the  divine  right 
of  Kings,  arbitrary  in  his  actions,  and  with  no  capacity  to 
understand  the  drift  of  public  sentiment.  He  was  also  marked 
by  a  weakness  that  easily  laid  him  open  to  charges  of  double- 
dealing  and  dishonesty.  From  the  first  he  enjoyed  the  friend 
ship  and  support  of  one  of  the  most  remarkable  men  of  the 
time,  William  Laud  (1573-1645). 

Laud  had  been,  under  James,  a  leader  among  the  younger 
Anglicans.  A  vigorous  opponent  of  Calvinism,  he  had  argued 
as  early  as  1604  "that  there  could  be  no  true  church  without 
bishops."  In  1622,  in  contest  with  the  Jesuit,  Fisher,  he  had 
held  that  the  Roman  Church  was  a  true  church,  and  a  branch 
of  the  Catholic  Church  universal,  of  which  the  Church  of  Eng 
land  was  the  purest  part.  In  many  respects  he  was  a  founder 
of  the  "Anglo-Catholic"  position ;  but  it  is  not  to  be  wondered 
that  both  the  Puritans  and  the  Roman  authorities,  to  whom 
that  view  was  then  novel,  believed  him  a  Roman  Catholic  at 
heart.  Twice  he  was  offered  a  cardinalate.  So  to  class  him 
was,  however,  to  do  him  a  great  injustice.  Laud  was  a  mar 
tinet,  intent  on  uniformity  in  ceremony,  dress  and  worship, 
with  a  rough  tongue  and  overbearing  manner  that  made  him 
many  enemies.  At  bottom,  with  all  his  narrowness  of  sym 
pathy,  he  had  a  real  piety  of  the  type,  though  not  of  the  win- 
someness,  of  Lancelot  Andrewes.  In  1628  Charles  made  Laud 
bishop  of  the  strongly  Puritan  diocese  of  London,  and  in  1633 
archbishop  of  Canterbury.  To  all  intents  he  was  Charles's 
chief  adviser  also  in  political  affairs  after  the  murder  of  the 
duke  of  Buckingham  in  1628. 

The  country  gentry,  who  formed  the  backbone  of  the  House 
of  Commons  were  strongly  Calvinist  in  their  sympathies,  and 
disposed  politically  to  resent  the  arbitrary  imposition  of  taxes 
without  parliamentary  consent.  Charles  scon  put  himself 
in  disfavor  in  both  respects.  Under  Laud's  guidance  he  pro 
moted  Arminians  to  church  preferments.  To  prevent  Cal- 
vinistic  discussion,  in  1628,  he  caused  a  declaration  to  be  pre 
fixed  to  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  that  no  man  shall  "put  his 
own  sense,"  on  any  Article,  "but  shall  take  it  in  the  literal  and 
grammatical  sense." 1  Parliament  resented  these  actions.2 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  518-520.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  521-527. 


CHARLES  AND  PARLIAMENT.    NEW  ENGLAND    469 

Charles  had  proceeded  to  forced  taxation,  imprisoning  some 
who  refused  to  pay.  Roger  Manwaring  (1590-1653),  a  royal 
chaplain,  preached  in  1627,  arguing  that  as  the  King  ruled  as 
God's  representative,  those  who  refused  taxes  imposed  by  him 
were  in  peril  of  damnation.  Parliament  condemned  Man- 
waring,  in  1628,  to  fine  and  imprisonment,  but  Charles  protected 
him  by  pardon  and  rewarded  him  by  ecclesiastical  advance 
ment,  ultimately  by  a  bishopric.  Questions  of  royal  right  to 
imprison  without  statement  of  cause,  and  of  taxation,  as  well 
as  of  religion,  embittered  the  relations  of  King  and  Parliament, 
and  after  dismissing  that  of,  1629,  Charles  determined  to  rule 
without  parliamentary  aid.  No  Parliament  was  to  meet  till 
1640.  The  weakness  of  the  Anglican  party  was  that  it  had 
identified  itself  with  the  arbitrary  policy  of  the  King. 

Laud,  with  the  support  of  the  King,  enforced  conformity 
with  a  heavy  hand.  Lectureships  were  broken  up.  Puritan 
preachers  silenced.  The  Declaration  of  Sports  was  reissued. 
Under  these  circumstances  many  Puritans  began  to  despair  of 
the  religious  and  political  outlook,  and  to  plan  to  follow  the 
Separatists  across  the  Atlantic.  It  was  no  abstract  religious 
liberty  that  they  sought,  but  freedom  to  preach  and  organize 
as  they  desired.  By  1628,  emigration  to  Massachusetts  had  be 
gun.  In  1629,  a  royal  charter  for  Massachusetts  was  secured, 
and  a  church  formed  in  Salem.  The  year  1630  saw  the  arrival 
of  many  immigrants  under  the  leadership  of  John  Winthrop 
(1588-1649).  Soon  there  were  strong  churches  about  Massa 
chusetts  Bay,  under  able  ministerial  leaders,  of  whom  John 
Cotton  (1584-1652)  of  Boston,  and  Richard  Mather  (1596- 
1669)  of  Dorchester,  were  the  most  conspicuous.  Connecticut 
colony  was  fully  established  in  1636,  with  Thomas  Hooker 
(1586-1647)  as  its  chief  minister  at  Hartford;  and  New  Haven 
colony  in  1638,  under  the  spiritual  guidance  of  John  Davenport 
(1597-1670).  These  men  were  clergy  of  the  English  establish 
ment.  They  had  no  fondness  for  Separatism.  But,  like  the 
Separatists,  they  looked  on  the  Bible  as  the  sole  law  of  church 
organization,  and  they  read  it  in  the  same  way.  Their  churches 
were  organized,  therefore,  on  the  Congregational  model.  Till 
1640,  the  Puritan  tide  to  New  England  ran  full,  at  least  twenty 
thousand  crossing  the  Atlantic. 

Charles's  period  of  rule  without  Parliament  was  a  time  of 
considerable  prosperity  in  England,  but  taxes  widely  believed 


470      SCOTLAND  REVOLTS.    THE  CIVIL  WAR 

to  be  illegal,  such  as  the  famous  "ship-money,"  and  enforced 
religious  uniformity,  kept  up  the  unrest.  It  was  in  Scotland, 
however,  that  the  storm  broke.  James  I  had  succeeded  in 
his  overthrow  of  Presbyterianism  largely  by  securing  the  sup 
port  of  the  nobles  by  grants  of  church  lands.  At  the  beginning 
of  his  reign  Charles,  by  an  act  of  revocation  that  was  just, 
though  impolitic,  ordered  the  restoration  of  these  lands,  to  the 
lasting  advantage  of  the  Scottish  church,  though  the  command 
was  imperfectly  executed.  Its  political  effect,  however,  was 
to  throw  the  possessors  of  church  lands  and  tithes  largely  on 
the  side  of  the  discontented  Presbyterians.  There  was  now  a 
relatively  united  Scotland,  instead  of  the  divisions  which  James 
had  fomented  to  his  profit. 

Great  as  were  the  changes  effected  by  James  I,  he  had  not 
dared  alter  the  larger  features  of  public  worship  (ante,  p.  467). 
But  now,  in  1637,  in  a  fatuous  desire  for  uniformity,  Charles, 
inspired  by  Laud,  ordered  the  imposition  of  a  liturgy  which  was 
essentially  that  of  the  Church  of  England.  Its  use,  on  July 
23,  in  Edinburgh,  led  to  riot.  Scotland  flared  in  opposition. 
In  February,  1638,  a  National  Covenant  to  defend  the  true  re 
ligion  was  widely  signed.  In  December,  a  General  Assembly 
deposed  the  bishops,  and  repudiated  the  whole  ecclesiastical 
structure  which  James  and  Charles  had  erected  since  1597. 
This  was  rebellion,  and  Charles  raised  forces  to  suppress  it. 
So  formidable  was  the  Scottish  attitude  that  an  agreement 
patched  up  a  truce  in  1639;  but  in  1640  Charles  determined  to 
bring  the  Scots  to  terms.  To  pay  the  expenses  of  the  war  in 
prospect  Charles  was  at  last  compelled  to  call  an  English 
Parliament  in  April,  1640.  The  old  parliamentary  grievances 
in  politics  and  religion  were  at  once  presented,  and  Charles 
speedily  dissolved  the  "Short  Parliament."  In  the  brief  war 
that  followed  the  Scots  successfully  invaded  England.  Charles 
was  forced  to  treat,  and  to  guarantee  the  expenses  of  a  Scottish 
army  of  occupation  till  the  treaty  should  be  completed.  There 
was  no  help  for  it.  The  English  Parliament  must  again  be  sum 
moned,  and  in  November,  1640,  the  "Long  Parliament"  began 
its  work.  It  was  evident  at  once  that  Presbyterian  Puritanism 
was  in  the  majority.  Laud  was  cast  into  prison.  In  July, 
1641,  the  High  Commission  was  abolished.  In  January,  1642, 
the  attempt  of  the  King  to  seize  five  members  of  the  Commons, 
whom  he  accused  of  treason,  precipitated  the  civil  war.  In 


THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY  471 

general,  the  North  and  West  stood  for  the  King,  the  South 
and  East  for  Parliament.1 

Parliament  ab6lished  episcopacy  in  January,  1643.     Provision 
must  be  made  for  the  creed  and  government  of  the  church,  and 
therefore,  Parliament,  quite  in  the  spirit  of  Elizabeth,  as  sover 
eign,  called  an  assembly  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-one  clergy 
men  and  thirty  laymen,  named  by  it,  to  meet  in  Westminster 
on  July  1,  1643,  to  advise  Parliament,  which  kept  the  power  of 
enactment  in  its  own  hands.     The  Westminster  Assembly,  thus 
convened,  contained  a  few  Congregationalists  and  Episcopa 
lians,  but  its  overwhelming  majority  was  Presbyterian  Puritan. 
Meanwhile  the  war  had  begun  ill  for  Parliament,  and  to  secure 
Scottish  aid  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  pledging  the 
largest  possible  uniformity  in  religion  in  England,  Scotland,  and 
Ireland,  and  opposing  "prelacy/'  was  accepted  by  the  Scottish 
and  English  Parliaments  between  August  and  October,  1643, 
and  was  soon  required  of  all  Englishmen  over  eighteen  years 
of  age.     Scottish  commissioners,  without  vote,  but  with  much 
influence,  now  sat  in  the  Westminster  Assembly.    The  Assembly 
presented  to  Parliament  a  Directory  of  Worship  and  a  thoroughly 
Presbyterian  system  of  church  government  in  1644.     In  Janu 
ary  following,  Parliament  abolished  the  Prayer  Book  and  sub 
stituted  the  Directory,  which  provided  an  order  of  worship 
substantially  that  used  in  conservative  Presbyterian  and  Con 
gregational  Churches  to  the  present  day,  without  liturgical 
prayer,   though  with  suggestions  of  appropriate   subjects  of 
petition.     Parliament  looked  askance  at  the  establishment  of 
Presbyterian  government,  though  finally  ordering  it  in  June, 
1646.    The  work  was,  however,  very  imperfectly  set  in  opera 
tion.    The  same  month  that  witnessed  the  abolition  of  the 
Prayer  Book,  saw  the  execution  of  Laud  under  a  bill  of  at 
tainder — an  act  which  must  be  judged  one  of  vindictiveness. 
The  Assembly  next  prepared  its  famous  confession,2  which  it 
laid  before  Parliament  late  in  1646.     Adopted  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  Scotland  on  August  27,    1647,   it  remains  the 
standard  of  Scottish  and  American  Presbyterianism.     The  Eng 
lish  Parliament  refused  approval  till  June,  1648,  and  then  modi 
fied  some  sections.     In   1647,  the  Assembly  completed  two 

1  For  important  documents  illustrative  of  this  period,   see   Gee  and 
Hardy,  pp.  537-585. 

2  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  3  :  598-673. 


472         CROMWELL.    CHARLES  I  DEFEATED 

catechisms,  a  Larger,  for  pulpit  exposition,  and  a  Shorter,1 
for  the  training  of  children.  Both  were  approved  by  the  Eng 
lish  Parliament  and  the  Scottish  General  Assembly  in  1648. 

The  Westminster  Confession  and  catechisms  have  always 
ranked  among  the  most  notable  expositions  of  Calvinism.  In 
general,  they  repeat  the  familiar  continental  type.  On  the 
question  of  the  divine  decrees  they  are  infralapsarian  (ante, 
p.  454).  One  of  their  chief  peculiarities  is  that  in  addition  to 
the  familiar  derivation  of  original  sin  from  the  first  parents  as 
"the  root  of  all  mankind,"  they  emphasize  a  "covenant  of 
works"  and  a  "covenant  of  grace."  In  the  former,  Ad#m  is 
regarded  as  the  representative  head  of  the  human  race,  to  whom 
God  made  definite  promises,  which  included  his  descendants, 
and  which  he,  as  their  representative,  forfeited  by  his  disobedi 
ence  for  them  as  well  as  for  himself.  The  " covenant  of  works" 
having  failed,  God  offered  a  new  "covenant  of  grace"  through 
Christ.  This  covenant  doctrine  is  to  be  traced  to  Kaspar 
Olevianus  (ante,  p.  443),  though  its  fullest  exposition  was  to  be 
in  the  work  of  Johann  Coccejus  (1603-1669),  professor  in 
Franeker  and  Leyden.  It  was  an  attempt  to  give  a  definite 
explanation  of  sin  as  man's  own  act,  and  to  show  a  real  human 
responsibility  for  his  ruin.  Another  peculiarity  of  these  sym 
bols  is  an  emphasis  on  the  Sabbath  consonant  with  the  Puritan 
development  of  this  doctrine  (ante,  p.  466). 

While  these  theological  and  ecclesiastical  discussions  were  in 
progress  the  civil  war  had  run  its  early  course.  On  July  2, 
1644,  the  royal  army  had  been  defeated  on  Marston  Moor  near 
York,  largely  by  the  skill  of  a  member  of  Parliament  of  little 
military  experience,  Oliver  Cromwell  (1599-1658),  whose 
abilities  had  created  a  picked  troop  of  "religious  men."  Not 
quite  a  year  later,  on  June  14,  1645,  Cromwell  cut  to  pieces  the 
last  field  army  of  the  King  near  Naseby.  The  next  year 
Charles  gave  himself  up  to  the  Scots,  who,  in  turn,  surrendered 
him  to  the  English  Parliament.  The  army,  as  created  by  Crom 
well,  was  a  body  of  religious  enthusiasts,  in  which  little  question 
was  raised  of  finer  distinctions  of  creed.  So  long  as  they  op 
posed  Rome  and  "prelacy,"  Baptists,  Congregationalists,  and 
Puritans  were  welcome  in  it.  The  rigid  Presbyterianism  of 
the  parliamentary  majority  was  as  distasteful  to  the  army 
as  the  older  rule  of  bishops,  and  Cromwell  fully  shared  this 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  676-703. 


CROMWELL'S  PROTECTORATE  473 

feeling.  The  army  was  soon  demanding  a  large  degree  of  toler 
ation. 

This  attitude  of  the  army  prevented  the  full  establishment 
of  Presbyterianism  which  Parliament  sanctioned.  It  dis 
pleased  tJie  Scots.  Charles  now  used  this  situation  to  intrigue 
with  the  Scots  to  invade  England  in  his  interest,  inducing  them 
to  believe  that  he  would  support  Presbyterianism.  On  August 
17-19, 1648,  the  invading  Scottish  army  was  scattered  by  Crom 
well  near  Preston.  This  victory  left  the  army  supreme  in  Eng 
land.  On  December  6  following,  "Pride's  Purge"  expelled 
from  Parliament  all  opposed  to  the  army's  wishes.  Charles  I 
was  then  tried  and  condemned  for  his  alleged  treasons  and  per 
fidies,  and  beheaded  on  January  30,  1649,  bearing  himself  with 
great  dignity.  Cromwell  then  subjugated  Ireland  in  1649, 
reduced  Scotland  the  next  year,  and  overthrew  Charles's  son, 
the  later  Charles  II  (1660-1685)  near  Worcester  in  1651.  Op 
position  had  been  everywhere  put  down. 

Cromwell,  though  not  identified  wholly  with  any  denomina 
tion,  was  practically  a  Congregationalist,  or  Independent,  and 
under  his  Protectorate  a  large  degree  of  toleration  was  allowed.1 
Since  the  beginning  of  the  war,  however,  about  two  thousand 
Episcopal  clergymen  had  been  deprived,  and  had  suffered  great 
hardship.  Then  as  in  earlier  and  later  changes  it  is  evident, 
nevertheless,  that  the  great  majority  of  the  clergy  either  were 
undisturbed  or  managed  to  adjust  themselves  to  the  new  state 
of  affairs.  Able,  conscientious,  and  statesmanlike  as  Crom 
well  was,  his  rule  was  that  of  military  authority,  and  was,  as 
such,  disliked,  while  the  bickerings  of  rival  religious  bodies 
were  equally  distasteful  to  a  great  majority  of  the  people  of 
England  who  could,  as  yet,  conceive  of  only  one  established 
form  of  faith.  Till  his  death,  on  September  3,  1658,  Cromwell 
suppressed  all  disaffection. 

Oliver  Cromwell  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Richard,  as 
Protector;  but  the  new  ruler  was  a  man  of  no  force,  and  prac 
tical  anarchy  was  the  result.  Royalists  and  Presbyterians  now 
combined  to  effect  a  restoration  of  the  monarchy.  On  April, 
14,  1660,  Charles  II  issued  a  declaration  "of  liberty  to  tender 
consciences,"  from  Breda,2  and  on  May  29  was  in  London. 
But  if  the  Presbyterians  had  just  hopes  of  being  included  in  the 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  574-585. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  585-588. 


474  THE  RESTORATION 

new  religious  settlement,  they  were  doomed  to  bitter  disappoint 
ment. 

Charles  II  may  have  intended  some  comprehension  of  Pres 
byterians  in  the  national  church.  Edward  Reynolds  (1599- 
1676),  heretofore  a  decided  Puritan,  was  made  bishop  of  Nor 
wich.  The  saintly  Richard  Baxter  (1615-1691),  one  of  the  most 
eminent  of  the  Presbyterian  party,  was  offered  a  bishopric, 
but  declined.  A  conference  between  bishops  and  Presbyterians 
was  held  by  government  authority  at  the  Savoy  Palace  in  166 1,1 
but  led  to  little  result.  Charles  II  was  thoroughly  immoral, 
weak,  and  indifferent  in  religion,  and  little  reliance  could  be 
placed  on  his  promises.  Had  he  been  a  better  or  a  stronger 
man,  it  is  doubtful  whether  he  could  have  stemmed  the  tide  of 
national  reaction  against  Puritanism.  The  first  Parliament 
chosen  after  his  restoration  was  fiercely  royalist  and  Anglican. 
The  Convocations  of  Canterbury  and  York  met  in  1661,  and 
some  six  hundred  alterations  were  made  in  the  Prayer  Book, 
but  none  looking  in  the  Puritan  direction,  and  in  May,  1662, 
the  new  Act  of  Uniformity  received  the  royal  assent.  By  it2 
the  use  of  any  other  service  than  those  of  the  revised  Prayer 
Book  was  forbidden  under  heavy  penalties,  and  each  clergy 
man  was  required,  before  August  24,  to  make  oath  of  "un 
feigned  assent  and  consent  to  all  and  everything  contained 
and  prescribed"  therein;  and  also,  "that  it  is  not  lawful,  upon 
any  pretense  whatsoever,  to  take  arms  against  the  King." 

These  provisions  were  intended  to  bar  the  Puritans  from  the 
church,  and  as  such  they  were  effectual.  From  fifteen  hundred 
to  two  thousand  ministers  gave  up  their  places  rather  than  take 
the  prescribed  oaths.  The  Puritan  party  was  now,  what  it 
had  never  been  before,  one  outside  the  Church  of  England. 
Non-conformity  had  been  forced  to  become  Dissent.  Severer 
acts  soon  followed,  induced  in  part  by  fear  of  conspiracy  against 
the  restored  monarchy.  By  the  First  Conventicle  Act,  of  1664, 
fine,  imprisonment,  and  ultimate  transportation  were  the  pen 
alties  for  presence  at  a  service  not  in  accordance  with  the 
Prayer  Book,  attended  by  five  or  more  persons  not  of  the  same 
household.  The  "Five  Mile  Act,"  3  of  the  next  year,  forbad 
any  person  "in  Holy  Orders  or  pretended  Holy  Orders,"  or 
who  had  preached  to  a  "conventicle,"  and  did  not  take  the 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  588-594.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  600-619. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  620-623. 


DISSENT  REPRESSED  475 

oath  condemning  armed  resistance  to  the  King,  and  pledging 
no  attempt  at  "any  alteration  of  government  either  in  church 
or  state,"  to  live  within  five  miles  of  any  incorporated  town  or 
within  the  same  distance  of  the  former  place  of  his  ministry. 
Such  persons  were  also  forbidden  to  teach  school— about  the 
only  occupation  readily  open  to  a  deprived  minister.  The 
Second  Conventicle  Act,1  of  1670,  made  penalties  for  such  un 
lawful  attendance  less  severe,  but  ingeniously  provided  that  the 
heavy  fines  on  preacher  and  hearers  could  be  collected  from  any 
attendant,  in  case  poverty  prevented  their  payment  by  all. 
Yet,  in  spite  of  this  repression,  Dissenting  preaching  and  con 
gregations  continued. 

Charles  II,  though  a  man  of  no  real  religion,  sympathized 
with  the  Roman  faith,  which  he  professed  on  his  death-bed, 
and  his  brother,  the  later  James  II,  was  an  acknowledged  and 
earnest  Catholic  from  1672.  Moreover,  Charles  was  receiving 
secret  pensions  from  the  strongly  Catholic  Louis  XIV  of  France. 
On  March  15,  1672,  with  a  design  of  aiding  the  Catholics  and 
securing  Dissenting  favor  to  that  end,  Charles  issued,  on  his 
own  authority,  a  Declaration  of  Indulgence,  by  which  Protes 
tant  Dissenters  were  granted  public  worship,  the  penal  laws 
against  the  Catholics  remitted,  and  their  worship  permitted 
in  private  houses.  To  Parliament  this  seemed  an  unconstitu 
tional  favor  to  Rome.  It  forced  the  withdrawal  of  the  Indul 
gence,  in  1673,  and  passed  the  Test  Act,2  which,  though  aimed 
at  Catholics,  bore  hard  on  Protestant  Dissenters.  All  in  mili 
tary  or  civil  office,  with  few  minor  exceptions,  living  within 
thirty  miles  of  London,  were  required  to  take  the  Lord's  Sup 
per  according  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England  or  forfeit 
their  posts.  This  statute  was  not  to  be  repealed  till  1828. 
The  repression  of  Dissent,  therefore,  continued  unchanged  till 
the  death  of  Charles  II,  in  1685. 

For  James  II  (1685-1688)  it  must  be  said  that  he  saw  in  the 
establishment  of  Catholicism  his  chief  aim,  and  his  measures, 
though  unwise,  were  courageous.  He  ignored  the  Test  Act, 
and  appointed  Catholics  to  high  office  in  military  and  civil 
service.  He  brought  in  Jesuits  and  monks.  He  secured  from 
a  packed  Court  of  the  King's  Bench,  in  1686,  an  acknowledg 
ment  of  his  right  "  to  dispense  with  all  penal  laws  in  particular 
cases."  He  re-established  a  High  Commission  Court.  On 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  623-632.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  632-640. 


476  THE  REVOLUTION.    TOLERATION 

April  4,  1687,  he  issued  a  Declaration  of  Indulgence,1  granting 
complete  religious  toleration.  In  itself  it  was  a  well-sounding, 
and  from  the  modern  standpoint,  a  praiseworthy  act.  Yet  its 
motives  were  too  obvious.  Its  ultimate  aim  was  to  make 
England  once  more  a  Roman  Catholic  country,  and  all  Protes 
tantism  was  alarmed,  while  lovers  of  constitutional  government 
saw  in  it  a  nullification  of  the  power  of  Parliament  by  arbitrary 
royal  will.  The  vast  majority  of  Dissenters,  though  relieved 
thereby  from  grievous  disabilities,  refused  to  support  it,  and 
made  common  cause  with  the  churchmen.  When,  in  April, 
1688,  James  II  ordered  the  Indulgence  read  in  all  churches, 
seven  bishops  protested.  They  were  put  on  trial  and,  to  the 
delight  of  the  Protestants,  acquitted.  James  had  taxed  na 
tional  feeling  too  greatly.  William  of  Orange  (1650-1702), 
the  Stadholder  of  the  Netherlands,  who  had  married  Mary, 
James's  daughter,  was  invited  to  head  the  movement  against 
James.  On  November  5,  1688,  he  landed  with  an  army. 
James  fled  to  France.  The  Revolution  was  accomplished,  and 
on  February  13,  1689,  William  (III)  and  Mary  were  proclaimed 
joint  sovereigns  of  England. 

The  clergy  of  the  Restoration  had  asserted  too  long  the  doc 
trines  of  the  divine  right  of  Kings  and  of  passive  obedience  to 
royal  authority  to  make  this  change  palatable.  Seven  bishops, 
headed  by  William  Sancroft  (1616-1693),  refused  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  new  sovereigns,  and  with  them  about  four 
hundred  clergy.  To  them  James  II  was  still  the  Lord's 
anointed.  They  were  deprived,  as  Anglicans  and  Dissenters 
had  been  before,  and  they  bore  themselves  with  equal  courage. 
Many  of  them  were  men  of  earnest  piety.  They  formed  the 
Nonjuror  party,  which  gradually  died  out. 

Under  the  circumstances  of  the  Revolution  of  1688,  toleration 
could  no  longer  be  denied  to  Protestant  Dissenters.  By  the 
Toleration  Act2  of  May  24,  1689,  all  who  swore,  or  affirmed, 
the  oaths  of  allegiance  to  William  and  Mary  rejected  the  juris 
diction  of  the  Pope,  transubstantiation,  the  mass,  the  invoca 
tion  of  the  Virgin  and  saints,  and  also  subscribed  the  doctrinal 
portions  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  were  granted  freedom  of 
worship.  It  was  a  personal  toleration,  not  a  territorial  adjust 
ment  as  in  Germany  at  the  close  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War. 
Diverse  forms  of  Protestant  worship  could  now  exist  side  by 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  pp.  641-644.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  654-664. 


SCOTLAND.    THE  COVENANTERS  477 

side.  The  Dissenters  may  have  amounted  to  a  tenth  of  the 
population  of  England,  divided  between  Presbyterians,  Con- 
gregationalists,  Baptists,  and  Quakers.  They  were  still  bound 
to  pay  tithes  to  the  establishment,  and  had  many  other  dis 
abilities,  but  they  had  won  essential  religious  freedom.  No 
such  privileges  were  granted  to  deniers  of  the  Trinity  or  to 
Roman  Catholics.  The  effective  relief  of  the  latter  did  not 
come  till  1778  and  1791,  and  was  not  completed  till  1829. 

In  Scotland,  the  Restoration  was  a  time  of  great  turmoil 
and  suffering.  The  Parliament  of  1661  annulled  all  acts  af 
fecting  religion  passed  since  1633.  Episcopacy  was,  therefore, 
restored  as  in  the  time  of  Charles  I.  In  September,  1661, 
four  bishops  were  appointed,  chief  of  them  James  Sharp  (1618- 
1679)  as  archbishop  of  St.  Andrews.  Consecration  was  ob 
tained  from  England.  Sharp  had  been  a  Presbyterian  minis 
ter,  but  had  betrayed  his  party  and  his  church.  All  office 
holders  were  required  by  Parliament  to  disown  the  covenants 
of  1638  and  1643.  In  1663  Parliament  enacted  heavy  fines 
for  absence  from  the  now  episcopally  governed  churches, 
though  even  it  did  not  dare  introduce  a  liturgy.  Many  Pres 
byterian  ministers  were  now  deprived,  especially  in  south 
western  Scotland.  When  their  parishioners  absented  them 
selves  from  the  ministration  of  the  new  appointees,  they  were 
fined,  and  if  payment  was  not  forthcoming,  soldiers  were  quar 
tered  on  them.  In  1664  a  High  Commission  Court  was  added 
to  the  instruments  of  repression.  Two  years  later  some  of  the 
oppressed  supporters  of  the  covenants  of  1638  and  1643,  or  Cov 
enanters,  engaged  in  the  Pentland  Rising.  It  was  ruthlessly 
crushed,  and  the  Presbyterian  element  treated  with  increasing 
severity.  On  May  3,  1679,  in  belated  retaliation,  Sharp  was 
murdered.  This  crime  was  speedily  followed  by  an  armed  ris 
ing  of  Covenanters ;  but  on  June  22  the  revolt  was  crushed  at 
Bothwell  Bridge  and  the  captured  insurgents  treated  with  great 
cruelty.  Six  months  later  the  King's  brother,  James — the  later 
James  II  of  England — was  practically  put  in  charge  of  Scottish 
affairs.  The  extremer  and  uncompromising  Presbyterians  were 
now  a  proscribed  and  hunted  folk,  known  as  Cameronians — 
from  one  of  their  leaders,  Richard  Cameron. 

The  accession  of  James  II,  or  VII,  as  he  was  numbered  in 
Scotland,  but  intensified  at  first  the  repression  of  the  Camer 
onians.  His  first  year  was  the  "killing  time" ;  and  the  Parlia- 


478  PRESBYTERIANISM  ESTABLISHED 

ment  of  1685  made  death  the  punishment  for  attendance  at  a 
"conventicle."  James,  however,  soon  pursued  the  same  course 
as  in  England.  He  filled  his  council  with  Catholics,  and  in 
1687  issued  Letters  of  Indulgence  granting  freedom  of  worship. 
As  in  England,  this  release  of  Catholics  from  penalty  aroused 
the  hostility  of  all  shades  of  Protestants.  Episcopalians  and 
Presbyterians  were  alike  opposed;  and  when  William  and 
Mary  mounted  the  throne  of  England  they  had  many  friends 
in  the  northern  kingdom.  Scotland  was  more  divided  than 
England,  however.  The  Stewarts  were  Scotch,  and  though 
Episcopalians  disliked  the  Catholicism  of  James  they  distrusted 
the  Calvinism  of  "Dutch  William,"  whom  the  Presbyterians 
favored.  The  Revolution  triumphed,  however,  and  on  May 
11,  1689,  William  and  Mary  became  rulers  of  Scotland.  In 
1690  Parliament  restored  all  Presbyterian  ministers  ejected 
since  1661,  ratified  the  Westminster  Confession  (ante,  p.  472), 
and  declared  Presbyterianism  the  form  recognized  by  the 
government.  This  legal  establishment  of  Presbyterianism 
was  opposed  by  the  Cameronian  laity,  who  continued  their 
hostility  to  any  control  of  the  church  by  civil  authority  and 
condemned  the  failure  to  renew  the  covenants,  and  by  the  Epis 
copalians,  who  were  strong  in  northern  Scotland.  The  latter, 
however,  though  in  the  status  of  a  "dissenting"  body,  were 
permitted  by  a  toleration  act  of  1712,  to  use  the  English  liturgy. 
In  both  England  and  Scotland  the  long  quarrels  between  Protes 
tants  were,  therefore,  adjusted  in  similar  fashion  by  toleration. 

SECTION  XVII.      THE  QUAKERS 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  products  of  the  period  of  the 
civil  wars  in  England  was  the  Society  of  Friends,  or  Quakers. 
George  Fox  (1624-1691)  was  one  of  the  few  religious  geniuses 
of  English  history.  Born  in  Fenny  Drayton,  the  son  of  a 
weaver,  he  grew  up  earnest  and  serious-minded,  having  "never 
wronged  man  or  woman."  At  nineteen  a  drinking  bout,  to 
which  he  was  invited  by  some  nominal  Christians,  so  disgusted 
him  by  the  contrast  between  practice  and  profession  that  he 
was  set  on  a  soul-distressing  search  for  spiritual  reality.  Shams 
of  all  sorts  he  detested.  His  early  associates  had  been  to  some 
extent  Baptist,  and  many  of  his  later  peculiarities  are  to  be 
found  among  the  Anabaptists  of  the  Continent  or  were  rep- 


GEORGE  FOX  479 

resented  by  the  irregular  sects  of  the  English  civil- war  period. 
These  were  but  the  outward  trappings.  His  transforming  and 
always  central'  experience  came  to  Fox  in  1646.  He  felt  that 
Christianity  is  not  an  outward  profession,  but  an  inner  light  by 
which  Christ  directly  illuminates  the  believing  soul.  Revela 
tion  is  not  confined  to  the  Scriptures,  though  they  are  a  true 
Word  of  God — it  enlightens  all  men  who  are  true  disciples. 
The  Spirit  of  God  speaks  directly  through  them,  gives  them 
their  message,  and  quickens  them  for  service. 

In  1647  Fox  began  his  stormy  ministry.  Since  God  gives 
inner  light  where  He  will,  the  true  ministry  is  that  of  any  man 
or  woman  that  He  deigns  to  use.  A  professional  ministry  is 
to  be  rejected.  The  sacraments  are  inward  and  spiritual  veri 
ties.  The  outward  elements  are  not  merely  unnecessary  but 
misleading.  Oaths  are  a  needless  corroboration  of  the  truth 
ful  word  of  a  Christian.  Servility  in  speech  or  behavior  is  a 
degradation  of  the  true  Christian  respect  of  man  to  man. 
Artificial  titles  are  to  be  rejected — Fox  did  not  deny  legal  titles 
like  King  or  judge.  War  is  unlawful  for  a  Christian.  Slavery 
abhorrent.  All  Christianity  to  be  true  must  express  itself  in  a 
transformed,  consecrated  life.  Such  a  protest  as  that  of  Fox 
against  tendencies  to  confine  all  divine  revelation  to  the  Scrip 
tures  or  to  the  Fathers  of  early  centuries  was  a  wholesome  and 
needed  corrective  to  a  one-sided  interpretation  of  Christianity. 
Nor  was  its  insistence  on  spiritual  honesty  less  beneficial. 

The  sincerity  and  spiritual  earnestness  of  Fox's  beliefs,  his 
hatred  of  all  that  savored  of  formalism,  and  his  demand  for 
inward  spiritual  experience  were  immensely  attractive  forces. 
By  1652  the  first  Quaker  community  was  gathered  in  Preston 
Patrick  in  northern  England.  Two  years  later  the  Friends 
had  spread  to  London,  Bristol,  and  Norwich.  Fox's  most 
eminent  early  convert  was  Margaret  Fell  (1614-1702),  whom  he 
married  after  she  became  a  widow,  and  her  home,  Swarthmore 
Hall,  furnished  a  headquarters  for  his  preachers. 

In  the  circumstances  of  English  life  such  a  movement  met 
with  fierce  opposition.  Before  1661  no  less  than  three  thousand 
one  hundred  and  seventy-nine,  including  Fox  himself,  had  suf 
fered  imprisonment.  A  missionary  zeal  was  early  manifested 
which  sent  Quakers  to  proclaim  their  faith  to  as  far  distant 
points  as  Jerusalem,  the  West  India  Islands,  Germany,  Austria, 
and  Holland.  In  1656,  they  entered  Massachusetts,  and  by 


480  THE  QUAKERS 

1661  four  had  been  hanged.  There  was  some  explanation, 
though  no  justification,  for  this  severity  in  the  extravagant 
conduct  of  a  good  many  of  the  early  Quakers,  which  would  have 
aroused  police  interference  in  any  age. 

These  extravagances  were  made  possible  by  the  early  want 
of  organization,  as  well  as  belief  in  the  immediate  inspiration 
of  the  Spirit.  Fox  saw  the  necessity  of  order,  and  by  1666  the 
main  features  of  the  Quaker  discipline  were  mapped  out, 
though  in  the  face  of  considerable  opposition.  In  that  year 
" Monthly  Meetings"  were  established,  by  which  strict  watch 
could  be  kept  over  the  life  and  conduct  of  the  membership. 
Before  Fox  died,  in  1691,  the  body  had  taken  on  the  sober 
characteristics  which  have  ever  since  distinguished  it. 

The  laws  against  Dissenters  at  the  Restoration  bore  with 
peculiar  severity  on  the  Quakers,  since  they,  unlike  the  Pres 
byterians  and  Congregationalists,  made  no  effort  to  conceal 
their  meetings,  but  defiantly  maintained  them  in  the  face  of 
hostile  authority.  About  four  hundred  met  their  deaths  in 
prison,  and  many  were  ruined  financially  by  heavy  fines.  To 
this  period,  however,  belongs  their  most  eminent  trophy  and 
their  great  colonial  experiment.  William  Penn  (1644-1718), 
son  of  Admiral  Sir  William  Penn,  after  inclinations  toward 
Quakerism  as  early  as  1661,  fully  embraced  its  beliefs  in  1666 
and  became  at  once  one  of  the  most  eminent  preachers  and 
literary  defenders  of  the  faith.  He  determined  to  find  in 
America  the  freedom  denied  Quakers  in  England.  After  aid 
ing  in  sending  some  eight  hundred  Quakers  to  New  Jersey  in 
1677-1678,  Penn  obtained  from  Charles  II  the  grant  of  Penn 
sylvania,  in  1681,  in  release  of  a  debt  due  from  the  crown  to 
his  father.  In  1682  Philadelphia  was  founded,  and  a  great 
colonial  experiment  begun. 

The  Toleration  Act  of  1689  (ante,  p.  476)  relieved  the  Quak 
ers,  like  other  Dissenters,  of  their  more  pressing  disabilities, 
and  granted  them  freedom  of  worship. 


I 

PERIOD  VII.    THE  TRANSITION  TO  THE 
MODERN  RELIGIOUS  SITUATION 

SECTION   I.      THE  TURNING  POINT 

THE  question  has  been  much  controverted  whether  the 
Reformation  is  to  be  reckoned  to  the  Middle  Ages  or  to  modern 
history.  Not  a  little  may  be  urged  in  support  of  either  posi 
tion.  Its  conceptions  of  religion  as  to  be  maintained  by  ex 
ternal  authority,  of  the  dominance  of  religion  over  all  forms  of 
educational  and  cultural  life,  of  a  single  type  of  worship  as 
alone  allowable,  at  least  within  a  given  territory,  of  original 
sin  and  the  essential  worthlessness  of  the  natural  man,  of  evil 
spirits  and  witchcraft,  of  the  immediacy  and  arbitrariness  of 
the  divine  relations  with  the  world,  ancfeof  the  other-worldliness 
of  religious  outlook,  all  link  the  Reformation  to  the  Middle 
Ages.  So,  too,  the  problems  primarily  discussed,  however 
different  their  solution  from  that  characteristic  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  were  essentially  mediaeval.  Sin  and  grace  had  been,  since 
the  time  of  Augustine,  if  not  rather  of  Tertullian,  the  very 
heart  problems  of  Latin  theology.  They  were  so  of  the  Ref 
ormation.  However  Luther  himself  might  reject  Aristotle, 
the  older  Protestant  philosophy  was  thoroughly  Aristotelian. 
Nor,  though  monasticism  was  repudiated,  was  the  ascetic  view 
of  the  world  rejected,  least  of  all  by  Calvinism. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Reformation  broke  the  dominance 
of  the  sacramental  system  which  had  controlled  Christianity 
East  and  West  certainly  since  the  second  century.  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  were  preserved  and  highly  valued,  but 
they  were  now  regarded  as  seals  to  the  divine  promises,  not  as 
exclusive  channels  of  grace.  The  Holy  Spirit,  who  works  when 
and  how  and  where  He  will,  uses  them  for  His  gracious  purposes 
doubtless,  but  not  to  the  exclusion  of  other  means.  Salvation 
is,  therefore,  a  direct,  individual,  and  personal  relationship, 
wrought  by  God,  bringing  the  soul  into  union  with  Him, 
needing  no  saintly  or  priestly  intervention.  Furthermore, 
man's  relation  to  God  is  not  one  of  debt  and  credit,  of  evil  acts 

481 


482    THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MODERN  PERIOD 

to  be  purged  and  merit  to  be  acquired,  but  a  state  of  reconcilia 
tion  of  which  good  works  are  the  natural  fruits.  Nor  was  the 
Protestant  estimate  of  the  normal  relations  and  occupations  of 
life  as  the  best  fields  for  service  to  God  a  less  radical  departure 
from  the  Middle  Ages.  These  characteristics  link  the  Reforma 
tion  with  the  modern  world.  Yet  if  one  strikes  a  balance,  and 
remembers,  also,  how  largely  the  worldly  tendencies  of  human 
ism  were  suppressed  by  the  Reformation,  the  movement  in 
its  first  century  and  a  half  must  be  reckoned  in  great  measure 
a  continuance  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Though  great  religious 
bodies  still  use  Reformation  formulas,  and  bear  names  then 
originating,  they  no  longer  move  in  its  atmosphere,  but  in 
various  measure  indeed  in  that  of  modern  Christianity. 

To  assign  an  exact  line  of  demarcation  for  this  change  is 
impossible.  The  alteration  was  not  due  to  a  single  leader 
or  group  of  leaders.  It  has  modified  Christian  thought  very 
unequally.  The  transformation  has  not  yet  been  completed, 
after  more  than  two  centuries,  if  the  Christian  world  as  a  whole 
is  taken  into  view.  It  has  been  aided  by  a  great  variety  of 
causes.  One  of  these  has  been  the  steady  secularization  of 
government  since  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Even 
more  important  has  been  the  rise  of  the  professional, — other 
than  clerical, — mercantile,  and  laboring  classes  to  constantly 
increasing  education  and  political  influence.  In  the  Reforma 
tion  age  leaders  of  thought  and  sharers  in  government  were  few. 
Their  number  and  independence  have  been  steadily  expanding. 
This  growth  has  helped  to  bring  about,  and,  in  turn,  has  been 
aided  by,  an  increasing  toleration  on  the  part  of  the  state,  which 
has  made  easy  the  enormous  subdivision  of  Protestantism  and 
the  rise  of  many  groups  of  thinkers  not  directly  associated  with, 
or  opposed  to,  organized  religion. 

Yet  the  most  potent  instruments  in  effecting  this  change 
of  atmosphere  have  been  the  rise  of  modern  science  and  phi 
losophy,  with  the  immense  consequent  transformations  in  out 
look  upon  the  universe  and  upon  man's  position  in  it;  and  the 
subsequent  development  of  the  historic  method  of  examining 
and  interpreting  thought  and  institutions. 


THE  RISE  OF  MODERN  SCIENCE  483 

SECTION   II.      THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  MODERN  SCIENCE 
AND   PHILOSOPHY 

The  early  Reformation  period  conceived  of  the  universe  in 
Ptolemaic  fashion.  This  earth  was  viewed  as  the  centre  about 
which  sun  and  stars  revolve.  The  Renaissance  had  revived  in 
Italy  Greek  speculations  of  a  heliocentric  system,  and  these 
were  elaborately  developed  by  Nicolaus  Copernicus  (1473- 
1543),  of  Thorn  in  Poland,  and  published  in  the  year  of  his 
death.  At  the  time,  they  excited  slight  attention  and  that 
mostly  unfavorable.  But  astronomic  science  made  progress. 
Tycho  Brahe  (1546-1601),  though  but  partially  accepting  the 
Copernican  system,  multiplied  observations.  Johann  Kepler 
(1571-1630),  a  Copernican,  developed  these  into  brilliant 
generalizations.  Both  were  pursuing,  though  uninfluenced 
directly  by  him,  the  new  method  of  Sir  Francis  Bacon  (1561- 
1626),  by  which  inductive  experiment  was  made  the  basis  of 
hypothetical  generalization.  Galileo  Galilei  (1564-1642),  of 
Pisa,  gave  to  the  world  the  thermometer,  developed  the  pen 
dulum,  put  mechanical  physics  on  a  new  basis  by  experiment, 
and,  above  all,  applied  the  telescope  to  the  study  of  the  heavens. 
To  him  the  real  triumph  of  the  theory  of  Copernicus  was  due. 
But  its  explication,  especially  in  his  Dialogue  of  1632,  led  to 
bitter  philosophical  and  ecclesiastical  opposition,  and  he  was 
compelled  to  abjure  it  by  the  inquisition  the  year  following. 
The  real  popular  demonstration  of  the  Copernican  theory  was, 
however,  the  work  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton  (1642-1727).  His 
Principia  of  1687  made  a  European  sensation,  showing  as  it 
did  by  mathematical  demonstration  that  the  motions  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  are  explainable  by  gravitation^  The  effect 
of  Newton's  conclusions  was  profound.  To  thinking  men,  the 
physical  universe  no  longer  appeared  a  field  of  arbitrary  divine 
action,  but  a  realm  of  law,  interpretable,  such  was  the  con 
clusion  of  the  science  of  that  age,  in  strict  terms  of  mechanical 
cause  and  effect.  This  earth  was  no  longer  the  centre  of  all 
things,  but  a  mere  speck  in  a  vast  realm  of  bodies,  many  of 
infinitely  greater  size,  and  all  moving  in  obedience  to  unchange 
able  law. 

While  science"  was  thus  revealing  a  new  heaven  and  a  new 
earth,  philosophy  was  no  less  vigorously  challenging  the  claims 
of  authority  in  the  name  of  reason.  Rene  Descartes  (1596- 


484  DESCARTES  AND  SPINOZA 

1650),  a  native  of  France  and  a  Catholic,  spent  most  of  his 
active  intellectual  life  in  the  Netherlands.  There  he  wrote 
his  Discourse  on  Method  of  1637,  his  First  Philosophy  of  1641, 
and  his  Principia  of  1644.  To  his  thinking,  only  that  is  really 
knowledge  which  the  mind  fully  understands.  Mere  erudition 
is  not  intelligence.  The  objects  and  ideas  which  present 
themselves  to  the  mind  are  so  involved  and  so  dependent  one 
on  another  that  they  must  be  analyzed  and  separated  into  sim 
plicity  to  be  really  understood.  Hence  the  beginning  of  all 
knowledge  is  doubt;  and  no  real  progress  can  be  made  till  a 
basis,  or  point  of  departure,  can  be  found  which  cannot  be 
doubted.  That  Descartes  found,  with  Augustine,  in  his  own 
existence  as  a  thinking  being.  Even  in  doubting,  "I  think, 
therefore  I  am."  If  we  examine  the  contents  of  this  thinking  I, 
we  find  in  it  ideas  greater  than  it  could  of  itself  originate,  and 
since  nothing  can  be  without  an  adequate  cause,  there  must  be 
a  cause  great  enough  and  real  enough  to  produce  them.  Hence 
we  are  convinced  of  the  existence  of  God,  and  His  relation  to 
all  our  thinking.  In  God  thought  and  being  are  united.  Our 
ideas  are  true  and  Godlike  only  as  they  are  clear  and  distinct 
with  a  logical  clarity  like  the  demonstrations  of  geometry. 
Matter,  though  equally  with  mind  having  its  source  in  God, 
is  in  all  things  the  opposite  of  mind.  In  the  last  analysis  it 
has  only  extension  and  the  purely  mechanical  motion  imparted 
to  it  by  God.  Hence  animals  are  merely  machines,  and  the 
relations  between  human  bodies  and  minds  caused  Descartes 
great  perplexities. 

Yet,  influential  as  the  Cartesian  philosophy  was,  it  was  not 
its  details  which  profoundly  affected  popular  thought,  but  its 
assertion  that  all  conceptions  must  be  doubted  till  proved, 
and  that  any  adequate  proof  must  have  the  certainty  of  mathe 
matical  demonstration.  These  two  principles  were  to  have 
momentous  consequences. 

Much  less  influential  in  his  own  age  though  far  more  logical 
than  their  author  in  carrying  Descartes's  principles  to  their 
logical  development,  was  the  Netherlandish  Hebrew,  Baruch 
Spinoza  (1632-1677).  A  pantheist,  all  is  an  infinite  substance, 
all  is  God  or  nature,  for  with  him  the  terms  are  equivalent, 
known  in  two  modes  or  attributes,  thought  and  extension,  of 
which  all  finite  persons  or  attributes  are  the  expression.  As  to 
Descartes,  to  Spinoza  clearness  is  the  test  of  truth. 


LEIBNITZ  485 

But  how  do  men  know?  One  influential  answer  came  from 
the  German  mathematician,  historian,  statesman,  and  phi 
losopher,  Gottfried  Wilhelm  Leibnitz  (1646-1716),  for  the  last 
forty  years  of  his  life  librarian  in  Hanover,  and  an  earnest  seeker 
of  the  reunion  of  Catholicism  and  Protestantism.  Unlike 
Spinoza,  who  saw  in  the  universe  one  substance,  Leibnitz  be 
lieved  substances  infinite  in  number.  Each  is  a  "monad," 
an  indivisible  centre  of  force.  Each  mirrors  the  universe, 
though  the  degree  of  consciousness  in  differing  monads  varies 
from  practical  unconscious  to  the  highest  activity.  The 
greater  and  clearer  the  consciousness,  the  nearer  the  monad 
approaches  the  divine.  God  is  the  original  monad,  to  whose 
perception  all  things  are  clear.  All  ideas  are  wrapped  up  in  the 
monad,  are  innate,  and  need  to  be  drawrn  out  to  clearness. 
Here  again  is  the  characteristic  test  of  truth,  which  Descartes 
and  Spinoza  had  presented.  No  monad  influences  another; 
but  all  that  seems  mutual  influence  is  the  working  of  pre- 
established  harmony,  like  perfect  clocks  pointing  to  the  same 
hour.  Nor  do  the  aggregations  of  monads  which  constitute 
bodies  really  occupy  space.  Each  monad  is  like  a  mathematical 
point,  and  time  and  space  are  simply  the  necessary  aspects 
under  which  their  groupings  are  perceived.  God  created  the 
world  to  exhibit  His  perfection,  and  therefore,  of  all  possible 
worlds,  chose  the  best.  What  seems  evil  is  imperfection, 
physical  pain,  and  limitation,  or  moral  wrong,  which  is  never 
theless  necessary  in  the  sense  that  God  could  not  have  made  a 
better  world.  Leibnitz's  answer  was,  therefore,  that  men  know 
by  the  elucidation  of  their  innate  ideas. 

Very  different  was  the  answer  given  by  the  most  influential 
English  thinker  of  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  and  opening  of 
the  eighteenth  centuries,  John  Locke  (1632-1704).  In  his  fa 
mous  Essay  Concerning  Human  Understanding  of  1690  Locke 
denied  the  existence  of  innate  ideas.  The  mind  is  white  paper, 
on  which  sensation  writes  its  impressions,  which  the  mind  com 
bines  by  reflection  into  ideas,  and  the  combination  of  simple 
ideas  gives  rise  to  more  complex  ideas.  Locke's  purpose  was  to 
show  that  all  that  claims  to  be  knowledge  is  justly  subject  to 
criticism  as  to  its  reasonableness  judged  by  reason  based  on 
experience.  Thus  tested,  he  finds  the  existence  of  God  dem 
onstrated  by  the  argument  from  cause  and  effect;  morality 
is  equally  demonstrable  like  the  truths  of  mathematics.  Re- 


486  LOCKE  AND  SHAFTESBURY 

ligion  must  be  essentially  reasonable.  It  may  be  above  rea 
son — beyond  experience — but  it  cannot  be  contradictory  to 
reason.  These  views  Locke  developed  in  his  Reasonableness  of 
Christianity  of  1695;  the  Scriptures  contain  a  message  beyond 
the  power  of  unaided  reason  to  attain,  attested  by  miracles; 
but  that  message  cannot  be  contrary  to  reason,  nor  could 
even  a  miracle  attest  anything  essentially  unreasonable. 
Hence,  though  sincerely  Christian,  Locke  had  little  patience 
with  mystery  in  religion.  For  him  it  was  enough  to  acknowl 
edge  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  practise  the  moral  virtues 
which  He  proclaimed,  and  which  are  in  fundamental  accord 
with  the  dictates  of  a  reason  which  is  hardly  distinguishable 
from  enlightened  common  sense. 

Locke  was  no  less  influential  as  an  advocate  of  toleration  and 
opponent  of  all  compulsion  in  religion.  Religion's  only  proper 
weapon  is  essential  reasonableness.  Nor  was  Locke  less  forma 
tive  of  political  theory  in  England  and  America.  He  had  in 
deed  been  preceded  in  this  field,  in  various  directions,  by  Gro- 
tius  (1583-1645),  Hobbes  (1588-1679),  and  Pufendorf  (1632- 
1694).  In  his  Treatises  on  Government  of  1690  Locke  urged  that 
men  have  natural  rights  to  life,  liberty,  and  property.  To 
secure  these,  government  has  been  established  by  the  consent 
of  the  governed.  In  such  a  state  the  will  of  the  majority  must 
rule,  and  when  that  will  is  not  carried  out,  or  fundamental 
rights  are  violated,  the  people  have  the  right  of  revolution. 
The  legislative  and  executive  functions  should  be  carefully 
discriminated.  The  legislative  is  the  superior.  However 
inadequate  and  fanciful  this  may  be  as  a  historic  explanation  of 
the  origin  of  the  state,  its  influence  in  the  development  of 
English  and  American  political  theory  can  hardly  be  over 
estimated. 

Of  considerable  significance  in  the  theory  of  morals  was  the 
view  developed  by  the  earl  of  Shaftesbury  (1671-1713)  in  his 
Characteristics  of  Men  of  1711.  Hobbes  had  attempted  to 
find  the  basis  of  morality  in  man's  constitution,  but  had  dis 
covered  there  nothing  but  pure  selfishness.  To  Locke  the 
basis  which  reason  discovers  is  the  law  of  God.  Though  en 
tirely  reasonable,  morality  is  still  positive  to  Locke,  a  divine 
command.  Shaftesbury  now  taught  that,  since  man  is  a  being 
having  personal  rights  and  social  relationships,  virtue  consists 
in  the  proper  balancing  of  selfish  and  altruistic  aims.  This 


THE  RISE  OF  DEISM  487 

harmony  is  achieved,  and  the  value  of  actions  determined,  by 
an  inward  "moral  sense."  Shaftesbury  thus  based  right  and 
wrong  on  the  fundamental  constitution  of  human  nature  itself, 
not  on  the  will  of  God.  This  gave  a  reason  why  even  one  who 
rejected. the  divine  existence — which  was  not  the  case  with 
Shaftesbury — was  nevertheless  bound  to  maintain  moral  con 
duct.  It  removed  the  hope  of  reward  or  fear  of  punishment 
as  prime  motives  for  moral  conduct.  Atheist  and  rejector  of 
morality  could  no  longer  be  considered,  as  they  had  generally 
been,  equivalent  terms.  Nor  was  it  difficult  for  Bishop  Joseph 
Butler  (1692-1752)  to  preserve  Shaftesbury's  "moral  sense," 
while  giving  to  it  the  theistic  interpretation  of  "conscience," 
a  divinely  implanted  monitor  and  judge  of  conduct. 

SECTION   III.      DEISM  AND    ITS  OPPONENTS.      SCEPTICISM 

Locke's  test  of  truth  was  reasonableness,  in  the  sense  of  con 
formity  to  common  sense.  He  viewed  morality  as  the  prime 
content  of  religion.  The  Newtonian  conception  of  the  universe 
was  of  a  realm  of  law,  created  by  a  "first  cause,"  and  moving 
in  unchangeable  mechanical  order.  The  new  knowledge  of 
foreign  nations  of  long-established  civilization  and  other  re 
ligions  like  the  Chinese,  enlarged  men's  horizons  and  made  fa 
miliar  other  than  Christian  culture.  All  these  influences  led  to 
a  radical  departure  in  English  religious  thought,  that  known  as 
Deism.  As  early  as  1624  Edward  Herbert  of  Cherbury  (1583- 
1648)  had  enumerated  the  articles  of  belief  alleged  to  constitute 
natural  religion,  held  by  all  mankind  in  primitive  unspoiled 
simplicity,  as :  God  exists ;  He  is  to  be  worshipped ;  virtue  is 
His  true  service ;  man  must  repent  of  wrong-doing ;  and  there 
are  rewards  and  punishments  after  death.  To  the  later  Deists 
these  seemed  a  statement  of  the  content  of  natural,  universal 
reasonable  religion.  In  1696  came  John  Toland's  (1670-1722) 
Christianity  not  Mysterious;  1713  saw  Anthony  Collins's  (1676- 
1729)  Discourse  of  Freethinking;  in  1730  was  published  Mat 
thew  Tindal's  (1653?-1733)  Christianity  as  Old  as  Creation. 
In  these  works  the  main  features  of  the  Deistic  position  were 
set  forth.  All  that  is  acknowledged  beyond  or  above  reason 
is  held  on  belief  without  proof.  What  is  believed  without  proof 
is  superstition.  To  be  rid  of  superstition  is  to  be  free,  hence 
the  only  rational  thinker  is  a  freethinker.  The  worst  enemies 


488  THE  DEISTIC  ARGUMENT 

of  mankind  are  those  who  have  held  men  in  bondage  to  super 
stition,  and  the  chief  examples  of  these  are  "priests"  of  all 
sorts.  All  that  is  valuable  in  revelation  had  already  been  given 
men  in  natural  reasonable  religion,  hence  "  Christianity  "- 
that  is,  all  that  is  of  worth  in  Christianity — is  "as  old  as  crea 
tion."  All  that  is  obscure  or  above  reason  in  so-called  revela 
tion  is  superstitious  and  worthless  or  worse.  Miracles  are  no 
real  witness  to  revelation;  they  are  either  superfluous,  for  all 
of  value  in  that  to  which  they  witness  reason  already  possesses ; 
or  they  are  an  insult  to  the  perfect  workmanship  of  a  Creator 
who  has  set  this  world  running  by  most  perfect  mechanical 
laws  and  does  not  now  interfere  with  its  ongoing.  Deism  thus 
seemed  to  destroy  all  historic  Christianity  and  authoritative 
revelation.  It  was  widely  denounced  as  atheism,  yet  destruc 
tive  as  it  was,  not  justly.  In  the  thought  of  its  advocates  it 
was  a  rescue  of  religion  from  bondage  to  the  superstitious  and 
a  return  to  primitive  rational  simplicity  and  purity. 

From  a  modern  standpoint  the  weakness  of  Deism  is  evident. 
Its  primitive  universal,  rational  religion  is  as  much  a  figment  of 
the  imagination  as  the  primitive  unspoiled  social  and  political 
state  of  the  unspoiled  child  of  nature  so  dear  to  the  eighteenth 
century.  Its  assertion  that  "  whatever  is,"  that  is,  whatever  is 
natural,  "is  right,"  is  shallow  optimism.  It  had  no  sense  of 
the  actual  facts  of  the  historic  religious  development  of  the  race. 
Its  God  was  afar  off,  a  being  who  once  for  all  established  cer 
tain  religious  principles,  essentially  rules  of  morality,  and  set 
a  wonderfully  contrived  mechanical  world  in  motion  with  which 
He  has  nothing  now  to  do.  Its  merit  was  that  it  forced  con 
sideration  of  the  fundamental  reasonableness  and  moral  worthi 
ness  of  religious  claims.  So  to  criticise  and  to  estimate  it  is 
to  measure  it  by  a  standard  entirely  foreign  to  its  age.  Neither 
its  supporters  nor  its  critics  could  have  viewed  it  from  the 
standpoint  here  indicated. 

Deism  called  out  many  replies,  and  the  chief  proof  of  its 
power  is  that,  relatively  mediocre  men  as  most  of  the  Deists 
were,  most  of  its  opponents  attempted  to  meet  it  by  rational 
argument,  often  admitting  a  considerable  share  of  its  method, 
though  not  its  results.  Some  few  met  it  by  a  flat  denial  of 
any  power  of  reason  in  the  realm  of  religion.  Such  was  the 
answer  of  the  excellent  Non juror  William  Law  (1686-1761) 
in  his  reply  to  Tindal,  entitled  The  Case  of  Reason  (1732). 


BERKELEY  AND  BUTLER  489 

Reason,  Law  argued,  not  merely  does  not  find  truth  in  religion  ; 
"  it  is  the  cause  of  all  the  disorders  of  our  passions,  the  corrup 
tions  of  our  hearts."  God  is  above  the  power  of  man  to  com 
prehend,  "His  own  will  is  wisdom  and  wisdom  is  His  will. 
His  goodness  is  arbitrary." 

Less  directly  designed  as  an  answer  to  Deism  but  believed 
by  himself  to  be  destructive  of  all  " atheism"  was  the  phi 
losophy  of  George  Berkeley  (1685-1753),  a  man  of  most  generous 
impulses,  who  attempted  to  found  a  missionary  college  in  Ber 
muda  for  the  evangelization  of  the  American  Indians,  lived  for 
a  time  in  Rhode  Island,  and  in  1734  became  bishop  of  Cloyne 
in  Ireland.  To  Berkeley's  thinking  nothing  really  exists  but 
minds  and  ideas.  There  is  no  other  knowledge  of  what  is 
called  matter  but  an  impression  in  our  minds,  and  since  like 
can  only  affect  like,  our  minds  must  be  affected  only  by  other 
minds.  Since  ideas  are  universal  and  constant,  they  must  be 
the  product  in  our  minds  of  a  universal,  eternal,  and  constantly 
working  mind.  Such  a  mind  is  God,  and  to  Him  all  our  ideas 
are  due.  But  ideas  exist  not  merely  subjectively  in  our  minds. 
In  some  sense  what  we  call  nature  is  a  range  of  ideas  in  the 
divine  mind,  impressed  in  a  definite  and  constant  order  on  our 
minds,  though  their  reality  to  us  is  only  in  our  perception  of 
them  in  our  own  minds.  By  thus  denying  the  reality  of 
matter  Berkeley  would  destroy  that  whole  conception  of  the 
world  as  a  huge  mechanism — a  magnified  watch — made  once 
for  all  by  an  all-wise  Maker,  who  has  nothing  now  to  do  with 
its  ongoing,  which  Deism  had  held.  For  it  he  would  substitute 
a  universal  constant  divine  spiritual  activity.  Though  this  con 
ception  of  Berkeley  has  always  enjoyed  high  philosophic  re 
spect,  it  is  too  subtle  and  too  contrary  to  the  evidences  of  his 
senses  for  the  average  man. 

More  famous  in  its  own  time,  yet  of  far  less  philosophic  ability 
or  permanent  value,  was  a  work  of  Joseph  Butler  (1692-1752), 
a  Presbyterian  by  descent  who  had  early  entered  the  Church  of 
England  and  become  bishop  of  Bristol  in  1738,  and  of  Durham 
in  1750.  His  Analogy  of  Religion  of  1736  was  a  work  of  immense 
labor,  candor,  and  care.  In  answer  to  the  Deists  he  starts  from 
the  premises,  held  equally  by  the  Deists  and  their  opponents, 
that  God  exists,  that  nature  moves  in  a  uniform  course,  and  that 
human  knowledge  is  limited.  God  is  admittedly  the  author 
of  nature ;  if  the  same  difficulties  can  be  raised  against  the  course 


490  BUTLER  AND  HUME 

of  nature  as  against  revelation,  the  probability  is  that  both 
have  the  same  author.  Their  positive  resemblances  also  lead 
to  the  same  conclusion.  Immortality  is  at  least  strongly 
probable.  As  present  happiness  or  misery  depend  on  con 
duct,  it  is  probable  that  future  will  also.  Every  man  is  now 
in  a  state  of  "probation"  as  regards  his  use  of  this  life;  it  is 
probable  that  he  is  also  now  on  "probation"  as  to  his  future 
destiny.  Our  limited  knowledge  of  nature  does  not  warrant 
a  declaration  that  revelation  is  improbable,  much  less  impos 
sible,  and  whether  there  has  actually  been  a  revelation  is  a 
historic  question  to  be  tested  by  its  attestation  by  miracles  and 
fulfilment  of  prophecy.  Believed  widely  in  its  time  an  unan 
swerable  answer  to  Deism,  and  as  such  long  required  in  English 
and  American  universities,  Butler's  cautious  balance  of  proba 
bilities  utterly  fails  to  meet  modern  questions,  and  has  been 
well  criticised  as  raising  more  doubts  than  it  answers.  Its 
most  attractive  feature  is  its  moral  fervor  in  its  exaltation  of 
the  divine  regnancy  of  conscience  over  human  action. 

A  noteworthy  attack  alike  on  Deism  and  on  much  of  the 
current  defenses  of  Christianity  against  it  was  made  by  the 
acutest  British  philosopher  of  the  eighteenth  century,  David 
Hume  (1711-1776).  Born  in  Edinburgh,  he  died  in  that  city. 
He  lived  in  France  for  some  years,  saw  some  public  employ 
ment,  wrote  a  popular  but  highly  Tory  History  of  England, 
and  won  deserved  fame  as  a  political  economist.  During  his 
last  years  he  was  regarded  as  the  friendly,  kindly  head  of  the 
literary  and  intellectual  circles  of  his  native  city.  His  philo 
sophical  system  was  ably  set  forth  in  his  Treatise  of  Human 
Nature  of  1739 ;  but  this  rather  youthful  publication  attracted 
little  notice.  Very  different  was  it  when  the  same  ideas  were 
recast  in  his  Philosophical  Essays  of  1748  and  his  Natural  His 
tory  of  Religion  of  1757.  Philosophically,  Hume  was  one  of 
the  keenest  of  reasoners,  standing  on  the  basis  of  Locke,  but 
with  radical  and  destructive  criticism  of  Locke's  theories  and 
with  most  thoroughgoing  religious  scepticism.  Experience 
gives  us  all  our  knowledge,  but  we  receive  it  as  isolated  im 
pressions  and  ideas.  All  connection  between  our  mental  im 
pressions  as  related  by  cause  and  effect,  or  as  united  and  borne 
by  an  underlying  substance,  are  simply  the  inveterate  but 
baseless  view-points  of  our  mental  habit.  They  are  the  ways 
in  which  our  minds  are  accustomed  to  act.  What  we  really 


HUME  ON  MIRACLES  491 

perceive  is  that  in  our  limited  observation  certain  experiences 
are  associated.  We  jump  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  a 
causal  relation  between  them.  So,  too,  substance  is  "feigned." 
If  therefore  cause  and  effect  are  ruled  out,  the  argument  for 
a  God  founded  thereon  is  baseless.  The  denial  of  substance 
leaves  no  real  permanent  I  behind  my  experiences,  and  leaves 
no  philosophical  basis  for  immortality.  Hume,  in  whom  a 
dawning  of  historic  criticism  manifested  itself,  also  held  that 
history  shows  that  Polytheism  preceded  Monotheism  in  human 
development,  and  thus  history  gives  no  support  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  one  originally  recognized  God  of  Deism,  or  to  the  exist 
ence  of  the  simple  primitive,  rational  religion  of  nature  which 
Deists  claimed.  Most  of  Hume's  criticisms  were  too  subtle 
and  too  radical  to  be  very  fully  understood  by  either  Deists  or 
their  orthodox  opponents  in  his  day,  against  whom  they  were 
equally  directed. 

Hume's  greatest  sensation  was  his  criticism  of  miracles,  then 
looked  upon  as  the  main  defense  of  revelation  and  Christianity. 
His  argument  was  twofold.  Experience  is  the  source  of  all 
our  knowledge.  Our  experience  witnesses  to  the  uniformity  of 
nature  much  more  strongly  than  to  the  infallibility  of  human 
testimony.  Hence  the  probability  that  error,  mistake,  or  de 
ception  has  led  to  the  report  of  a  miracle  is  vastly  greater  than 
that  the  uniform  course  of  nature  has  really  been  interrupted. 
Yet,  granted  that  testimony  may  prove  that  unusual  events 
have  occurred,  that  would  not  prove  that  they  established  any 
thing,  unless  it  could  be  further  proved  that  they  were  wrought 
for  that  special  purpose  by  divine  power,  which  is  an  even 
more  difficult  task.  The  positions  here  assumed  have  had 
lasting  effect.  Few  who  now  affirm  miracles  view  them,  as 
the  eighteenth  century  did,  as  the  prime  proofs  of  Christianity. 
Rather,  the  revelation  is  regarded  as  carrying  faith  in  the  mir 
acles  far  more  than  their  lending  support  to  it.  Those  who 
accept  miracles  now  largely  regard  the  revelation  as  so  super 
natural  and  divine  as  to  render  miracles  not  unfitting  as  its 
accompaniment.  Since  Hume's  criticism,  the  question  of  mira 
cles  has  been  increasingly  felt  to  be  one  of  peculiar  difficulty. 

Deism,  though  soon  a  good  deal  weakened  in  England,  still 
continued,  and  extended  strongly  beyond  its  borders.  It  aided 
not  a  little  in  the  development  of  rationalism  in  Germany; 
but  its  most  powerful  influence  was  in  France,  where  it  had 


492  DEISM  ON  THE  CONTINENT 

many  advocates  and  became  fashionable.  Chief  of  these 
French  supporters  was  Fran£ois  Marie  Arouet,  or,  as  he  called 
himself,  Voltaire  (1694-1778),  who  had  become  familiar  with 
its  tenets  during  a  sojourn  in  England  from  1726  to  1729.  In 
Voltaire  eighteenth-century  France  had  its  keenest  wit.  No 
philosopher,  vain,  self-seeking,  but  with  genuine  hatred  of 
tyranny,  especially  of  religious  persecution,  no  one  ever  at 
tacked  organized  religion  with  a  more  unsparing  ridicule. 
Such  a  contest  was,  of  necessity,  more  sharply  drawn  in  France 
than  in  Great  Britain.  In  the  latter  country  a  certain  degree 
of  religious  toleration  had  been  achieved,  and  great  divergence 
of  religious  interpretation  was  practically  allowed.  In  France 
dogmatic  Roman  Catholicism  was  dominant.  The  contest 
was,  therefore,  between  Deism  or  Atheism,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  a  single  assertive  type  of  Christianity,  on  the  other.  Vol 
taire  was  a  true  Deist  in  his  belief  in  the  existence  of  God  and 
of  a  primitive  natural  religion  consisting  of  a  simple  morality ; 
also  in  his  rejection  of  all  that  rested  on  the  authority  of  Bible 
or  church.  Of  the  extent  and  significance  of  his  work  in  in 
fluencing  the  French  mind  in  directions  that  were  to  appear 
in  the  French  Revolution  there  can  be  no  question.  Deism 
affected  the  eighteenth  century  widely.  It  was  substantially 
the  creed  of  Frederick  the  Great  of  Prussia  (1740-1786); 
of  Joseph  II,  the  Holy  Roman  Emperor  (Austria,  1765-1790) ; 
and  of  the  marquis  of  Pombal  (1699-1782),  the  greatest  of 
Portuguese  statesmen  of  the  century.  Nor  was  Deism  less 
influential  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  Benjamin  Franklin 
(1706-1790)  and  Thomas  Jefferson  (1743-1826)  were  its  ad 
herents. 

Deism  had  powerful  popular  presentation  in  the  brutal, 
savage  work  of  Thomas  Paine  (1737-1809),  the  son  of  an  Eng 
lish  Quaker,  whose  Common  Sense  of  1776  did  great  service  to 
the  American  Revolution ;  nor  was  his  Rights  of  Man  of  1791 
less  effective  in  defense  of  the  principles  underlying  the  French 
Revolution.  In  1795  came  his  Age  of  Reason,  in  which  Deism 
was  presented  in  its  most  aggressive  form.  Though  unsparingly 
denounced,  it  left  a  series  of  followers,  and  represented  a  type 
of  criticism  of  the  morality  of  the  traditional  representation  of 
the  divine  nature  and  dealings,  on  the  basis  of  an  uncritical 
and  unhistoric  treatment  of  the  Scriptures,  which  found  a 
belated  echo  in  Robert  G.  Ingersoll  (1833-1899). 


GIBBON  AND  PALEY  493 

A  sceptical  criticism  on  the  early  history  of  Christianity 
advanced  by  the  historian  Edward  Gibbon  (1737-1794)  in 
the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  chapters  of  his  great  History  of  the 
Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire  (1776)  deserves  notice, 
not  for  its  inherent  importance,  but  for  the  controversy  that  it 
aroused,  and  the  light  that  it  throws  on  the  thought  of  the 
time.  In  accounting  for  the  spread  of  Christianity,  Gibbon 
gave  as  reasons  its  zeal  inherited  from  the  Jews,  its  teaching 
of  immortality,  its  claim  to  miraculous  gifts,  its  strict  morality, 
and  its  efficient  organization.  No  modern  historian  would 
probably  object  to  any  of  these  explanations,  as  far  as  they  go. 
What  would  impress  him  is  their  absolute  want  of  compre 
hension  of  the  nature  of  religion,  whether  Christian  or  other, 
and  of  the  forces  by  which  religion  makes  conquests.  But  that 
was  an  ignorance  equally  shared  by  Gibbon's  critics  in  the 
eighteenth  century.  The  usual  orthodox  explanation  had 
been  that  the  first  disciples  had  been  so  convinced  of  the  truth 
of  the  Gospel  by  miracles  that  they  were  willing  to  hazard  their 
lives  in  its  behalf.  The  excitement  roused  by  Gibbon's  rather 
superficial  explanation  was  that  it  supplied  other  causes,  less 
directly  supernatural,  for  the  spread  of  Christianity.  Its  one 
permanent  result  was  to  aid,  with  other  influences,  toward  the 
historical  investigation  of  the  Scriptures  and  Christian  origins, 
which  was  to  be  so  largely  the  work  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  general  attitude  of  the  period,  and  also  the  general  ra 
tionalizing  of  even  orthodox  Christian  presentation  in  England, 
at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  is  best  illustrated  in  the 
work  of  William  Paley  (1743-1805).  His  View  of  the  Evidences 
of  Christianity  of  1794  and  Natural  Theology  of  1802  were 
written  with  remarkable  clearness  of  style  and  cogency  of 
reasoning,  and  long  enjoyed  high  popularity.  From  a  watch, 
he  argues,  we  infer  a  maker,  so  from  the  wonderful  adaptation 
of  the  human  body,  the  eye,  the  hand,  the  muscles,  we  infer 
an  almighty  Designer.  These  arguments,  therefore,  prove  the 
existence  of  God.  God  has  made  His  will  the  rule  of  human 
action  and  revealed  it  to  men.  The  purpose  of  revelation  is 
"the  proof  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments." 
That  revelation  was  given  by  Christ,  and  its  convincing  force 
to  the  first  disciples  was  in  the  miracles  by  which  it  was  accom 
panied.  "They  who  acted  and  suffered  in  the  cause  acted 
and  suffered  for  the  miracles."  Paley  then  proceeds  to  defini- 


494  EARLY  ENGLISH  ARIANISM 

tion.  "Virtue  is  the  doing  good  to  mankind,  in  obedience  to 
the  will  of  God,  and  for  the  sake  of  everlasting  happiness." 
This  prudential  and  self-regarding  estimate  of  virtue  is  char 
acteristic  of  Paley's  age,  as  were  his  emphases  on  the  evidential 
character  of  miracles  and  on  a  mechanical  demonstration  of 
the  divine  existence  which  the  theory  of  evolution  has  since 
largely  robbed  of  force.  Yet  it  is  pleasant  to  note  that  Paley's 
thought  of  "doing  good  to  mankind"  led  him  to  strenuous 
opposition  to  human  slavery. 

SECTION   IV.      ENGLISH  UNITARIANISM 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  on  the  Continent  anti- 
Trinitarian  views  were  represented  by  some  Anabaptists  (ante, 
p.  369)  and  by  the  Socinians  (ante,  pp.  451-453).  Both  types 
penetrated  into  England.  Under  Elizabeth  "Arian  Baptists" 
from  the  Netherlands  were  burned  in  1575.  Under  James  I 
Bartholomew  Legate  and  Edward  Wightman,  of  similar  views, 
have  the  distinction  in  1612  of  being  the  last  Englishmen 
burned  for  their  faith.  With  the  controversies  of  the  civil-war 
period  anti-Trinitarian  views  became  more  evident.  In  John 
Biddle  (1615-1662),  an  Oxford  graduate,  Socinianism  had  a 
more  learned  representative,  who  suffered  much  imprison 
ment.  The  great  Puritan  poet,  John  Milton  (1608-1674),  in 
clined  to  Arianism  in  his  later  years.  Biddle's  chief  convert 
was  Thomas  Firmin  (1632-1697),  a  London  layman,  who  fur 
thered  the  publication  of  anti-Trinitarian  tracts. 

With  the  dawn  of  the  eighteenth  century,  with  its  rational 
izing  impulses  both  in  orthodox  and  Deistic  circles,  and  its  in 
clination  to  see  in  morality  the  essence  of  religion,  these  anti- 
Trinitarian  tendencies  were  greatly  strengthened.  The  Pres 
byterian  minister  Thomas  Emlyn  (1663-1741)  published  his 
widely  read  Inquiry  into  the  Scripture  Account  of  Jesus  Christ 
in  1702.  In  1712  Samuel  Clarke  (1675-1729),  rector  of  St.. 
James,  Westminster,  and  deemed  the  most  philosophical  of  the 
Anglican  clergy,  published  his  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
in  which  he  sought  to  demonstrate  Arian  views  by  a  painstaking 
examination  of  the  New  Testament.  It  was,  however,  among 
the  Dissenters,  especially  the  Presbyterians  and  General  Bap 
tists,  that  anti-Trinitarian  views  won  the  largest  following. 
In  1717  Joseph  Hallet  and  James  Peirce,  Presbyterian  minis- 


ENGLISH  UNITARIANISM  495 

ters  in  Exeter,  adopted  Arianism.  The  movement  spread 
widely.  The  most  learned  of  eighteenth-century  Dissenters, 
Nathaniel  Lardner  (1684-1768),  was  its  representative.  On  the 
whole,  the  Congregationalists  and  the  Particular  Baptists  were 
little  affected,  and  in  consequence  grew  in  numbers  as  the 
century  went  on,  surpassing  the  Presbyterians,  who  at  the  time 
of  the  Toleration  Act  had  been  the  most  numerous  Non-Con 
formist  body. 

Arianism  changed  to  Socinianism.  A  further  impulse  was 
given  to  the  movement  when  a  clergyman  of  the  establishment, 
Theophilus  Lindsey  (1723-1808),  who  was  already  a  Socinian, 
circulated  a  petition  which  received  some  two  hundred  and 
fifty  signatures  asking  that  clergymen  be  relieved  from  subscrip 
tion  to  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  and  pledge  their  fidelity  to 
the  Scriptures  alone.  Parliament  in  1772  refused  to  receive 
it.  In  1773  Lindsey  withdrew  from  the  establishment,  and 
the  next  year  organized  a  Unitarian  Church  in  London. 
Closely  associated  with  Lindsey  was  Joseph  Priestley  (1733- 
1804),  a  Dissenting  clergyman,  an  eminent  chemist,  the  dis 
coverer  of  oxygen,  a  sympathizer  with  the  American  and 
French  Revolutions,  who  spent  the  last  ten  years  of  his  life 
in  Pennsylvania.  Parliament  in  1779  amended  the  Toleration 
Act  by  substituting  profession  of  faith  in  the  Scriptures  for 
the  required  acceptance  of  the  doctrinal  part  of  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles,  and  removed  all  penal  acts  against  deniers  of  the 
Trinity  in  1813.  This  older  English  Unitarianism  was  formal 
and  intellectual,  clear  in  its  rejection  of  "creeds  of  human 
composition,"  and  insistence  on  salvation  by  character.  It 
was  often  intellectually  able,  but  had  little  ^influence  on  pop 
ular  religious  life.  Its  effect  in  producing  a  similar  move 
ment  in  New  England  was  considerable,  though  that  grew 
also  out  of  the  general  rationalizing  tendencies  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  and  was  on  the  whole  less  dryly  intellectual  than  its 
counterpart  in  England. 

SECTION  V.      PIETISM   IN  GERMANY 

The  development  of  a  scholastic  Lutheranism  has  already 
been  noted  (ante,  pp.  441-444).  Though  nominally  based  on 
the  Scriptures,  it  was  practically  a  fixed  dogmatic  interpreta 
tion,  rigid,  exact,  and  demanding  intellectual  conformity. 


496  SCHOLASTIC  LUTHERANISM 

Emphasis  was  laid  on  pure  doctrine  and  the  sacraments,  as 
constituting  the  sufficient  elements  of  the  Christian  life.  In 
some  respects  the  field  had  grown  narrower  than  that  of  Roman 
Catholicism,  for  if  Catholicism  was  equally  dogmatic  regarding 
belief  and  sacraments,  it  also  laid  an  emphasis  on  good  works, 
which  dogmatic  Lutheranism  rejected.  For  that  vital  rela 
tionship  between  the  believer  and  God  which  Luther  had 
taught  had  been  substituted  very  largely  a  faith  which  con 
sisted  in  the  acceptance  of  a  dogmatic  whole.  The  layman's 
role  was  largely  passive,  to  accept  the  dogmas  which  he  was 
assured  were  pure,  to  listen  to  their  exposition  from  the  pulpit, 
to  partake  of  the  sacraments  and  share  in  the  ordinances  of  the 
church,  these  were  the  practical  sum  of  the  Christian  life. 
Some  evidences  of  a  deeper  piety,  indeed,  existed,  of  which 
the  hymns  of  the  age  are  ample  proof,  and  doubtless  many  in 
dividual  examples  of  real  and  inward  religious  life  were  to  be 
found,  but  the  general  tendency  was  external  and  dogmatic. 
It  was  the  tendency  often,  though  only  partially  justly,  called 
"dead  orthodoxy." 

Pietism  was  a  breach  with  these  tendencies,  an  assertion  of 
the  primacy  of  the  feeling  in  Christian  experience,  a  vindication 
for  the  laity  of  an  active  share  in  the  upbuilding  of  the  Chris 
tian  life,  and  the  assertion  of  a  strict  ascetic  attitude  toward 
the  world.  Many  sources  have  been  assigned  to  it,  Anabap 
tist  influences,  Roman  Catholic  mystical  piety,  the  example 
of  the  Reformed  ecclesiastical  life  of  Holland  or  England.  The 
subject  is  a  difficult  one.  All  these  may  have  contributed 
something,  but  so  far  as  a  definite  cause  for  Pietism  can  be 
given  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  teaching  and  example  of  one  of  the 
most  notable  religious  figures  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
Philipp  Jakob  Spener. 

Spener  was  born  on  January  13,  1635,  in  Rappoltsweiler,  in 
Alsace.  The  True  Christianity  of  the  German  ascetic  mystic, 
Johann  Arndt  (1555-1621)  roused  him,  and  its  impressions 
were  deepened  by  translations  of  some  of  the  edificatory 
treatises  of  the  English  Puritans.  His  student  years  in  Strass- 
burg  familiarized  him  with  Biblical  exegesis,  and  he  saw  there 
a  church  discipline  and  a  care  in  catechetical  instruction  far 
beyond  what  was  customary  in  most  Lutheran  circles.  Further 
studies  in  Geneva  deepened  these  impressions  without  weaning 
him  from  Lutheranism.  In  1666  he  became  chief  pastor  in  the 


SPENER'S  AIMS  AND  WORK  497 

prosperous  commercial  city  of  Frankfort.  He  felt  the  need 
of  church  discipline,  but  found  himself  hindered,  because  all 
authority  was  yi  the  hands  of  the  city  government.  Under 
such  leadership  as  was  permitted  him,  catechetical  instruction 
speedily  improved.  His  first  considerable  innovation  occurred 
in  1670,  "when  he  gathered  in  his  own  house  a  little  group  of 
like-minded  people  for  Bible  reading,  prayer,  and  the  discus 
sion  of  the  Sunday  sermons — the  whole  aiming  at  the  deepen 
ing  of  the  individual  spiritual  life.  Of  these  circles,  to  which 
the  name  collegia  pietatis  was  given  (hence  Pietism),  the  first 
was  that  in  Spener's  home. 

These  plans  for  cultivating  a  warmer  Christian  life  Spener 
put  forth  in  his  Pia  desideria  of  1675.  The  chief  evils  of  the 
time  he  pictured  as  governmental  interference,  the  bad  example 
of  the  unworthy  lives  of  some  of  the  clergy,  the  controversial 
interpretation  of  theology,  and  the  drunkenness,  immorality,  and 
self-seeking  of  the  laity.  As  measures  of  reform  he  proposed 
the  gathering  within  the  various  congregations  of  circles — 
ecclesiolce  in  ecclesia — for  Bible  reading;  and  since  all  believers 
are  priests — a  Lutheran  contention  which  had  been  practically 
forgotten — for  mutual  watch  and  helpfulness.  Christianity 
is  far  more  a  life  than  an  intellectual  knowledge.  Controversy 
is  unprofitable.  Better  training  for  the  clergy  is  desirable. 
An  experimental  knowledge  of  religion,  and  a  befitting  life 
should  be  demanded  of  them.  A  new  type  of  preaching  should 
be  practised,  designed  to  build  up  the  Christian  life  of  the 
hearers,  not  primarily  controversial  or  exhibitory  of  the  argu 
mentative  abilities  of  the  preacher.  That  only  is  genuine  Chris 
tianity  which  shows  itself  in  the  life.  Its  normal  beginning  is 
a  spiritual  transformation,  a  conscious  new  birth.  Spener  also 
showed  certain  ascetic  tendencies,  like  the  English  Puritans, 
inculcating  moderation  in  food,  drink,  and  dress,  and  rejecting 
the  theatre,  dances,  and  cards,  which  contemporary  Lutheran- 
ism  regarded  as  "indifferent  things."  Spener's  efforts  en 
countered  bitter  opposition,  and  aroused  enormous  contro 
versy.  He  was  accused  of  heresy.  Falsely  so,  as  indicating 
any  intentional  departure  from  Lutheran  standards ;  but  rightly 
so  in  the  sense  that  his  spirit  and  ideals  were  totally  unlike 
those  of  contemporary  Lutheran  orthodoxy.  His  work  involved 
a  going  back  to  the  Scriptures  from  the  creeds  and  theological 
interpretations  of  dogmatism.  Spener's  feeling  that,  if  "the 


498  SPENER  AND  FRANCKE 

heart"  was  right,  differences  of  intellectual  interpretation  were 
relatively  unimportant,  was  not  merely  opposed  to  the  Lu 
theran  emphasis  on  "pure  doctrine,"  it  was  destructive  of  it. 
The  two  points  of  view  were  mutually  exclusive.  Spener  un 
doubtedly  greatly  popularized  familiarity  with  the  Bible,  and 
undermined  the  authority  of  confessional  standards,  as  giving 
in  final  logical  form  what  the  Scriptures  had  to  teach.  A  result 
of  this  Biblical  study  was  to  prepare  the  way  for,  rather  than  to 
effect,  an  investigation  of  the  nature  and  history  of  the  Scrip 
tures  themselves.  Spener  greatly  improved  the  religious  in 
struction  of  youth,  and  achieved  his  purpose  of  introducing  a 
more  strenuous, Biblically  fed,  and  warmer  popular  Christian  life. 

At  Frankfort  some  of  Spener's  disciples,  in  spite  of  his  pro 
tests,  withdrew  from  church  worship  and  the  sacraments. 
Spener's  meetings  consequently  met  with  police  opposition, 
and  he  was  glad,  in  1686,  to  accept  a  call  to  Dresden  as  court 
preacher. 

Meanwhile,  the  Pietist  movement  had  spread  to  the  Univer 
sity  of  Leipzig.  In  1686  one  of  the  younger  instructors,  August 
Hermann  Francke  (1663-1727),  and  a  few  associates,  founded 
there  a  collegium  philobiblicum  for  the  study  of  the  Scriptures. 
Its  members  were  at  first  instructors,  its  method  scientific,  and 
it  had  the  approval  of  the  university  authorities.  But  in  1687 
Francke  experienced  what  he  regarded  as  a  divine  new  birth 
while  in  Liineburg  and  engaged  in  writing  a  sermon  on  John 
2031.  A  couple  of  months'  stay  with  Spener,  in  Dresden,  com 
pleted  his  acceptance  of  Pietism.  In  1689  Francke  was  back 
in  Leipzig,  lecturing  to  the  students  and  to  the  townspeople 
with  great  following.  Leipzig  was  soon  in  a  good  deal  of  tur 
moil.  An  electoral  edict  soon  forbad  the  meeting  of  citizens 
in  "  conventicles."  Undoubtedly  Francke's  lectures  led  some 
students  to  neglect  other  studies  and  to  assume  a  critical  at 
titude.  Under  the  leadership  of  the  Leipzig  professor  of  the 
ology,  Johann  Benedict  Carpzov  (1639-1699),  the  university 
authorities  limited  Francke's  work.  Carpzov  became  one  of 
the  most  unwearied  of  Spener's  opponents.  Francke's  position 
became  so  uncomfortable  that  he  was  glad,  in  1690,  to  accept 
a  call  to  Erfurt  as  "deacon." 

Meanwhile  Spener's  path  in  Dresden  was  not  easy.  The 
Saxon  clergy  looked  upon  him  as  a  stranger;  the  two  Saxon 
universities,  Leipzig  and  Wittenberg,  jopposed  him.  His  meet- 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  HALLE  499 

ings  for  spiritual  upbuilding  developed  criticism.  The  Elector, 
John  George  III  (1647-1691),  took  offense  at  Spener's  pastoral 
reproof  of  his  drunkenness.  When,  therefore,  an  invitation 
to  Berlin  came  from  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  Frederick  III 
(1688-1701),  who  was  to  become  King  Frederick  I  of  Prussia 
(1701-1713),  Spener  willingly  accepted  it  in  1691.  Though 
Spener  never  won  his  new  sovereign  for  personal  Pietism,  he 
had  much  support  from  Frederick,  and  his  years  in  Berlin,  to 
his  death,  on  February  5,  1705,  were  his  happiest  and  most 
successful. 

While  in  Berlin  Spener  was  able  to  do  his  greatest  service 
to  Pietism.  Christian  Thomasius  (1655-1728),  a  rationalist 
in  the  sense  of  Locke,  a  critic  of  the  theological  hair-splitting 
of  the  day,  a  creator  of  German  jurisprudence,  the  first  to  sub 
stitute  German  for  Latin  as  the  language  of  the  university  in 
struction,  a  defender  of  religious  toleration,  a  sceptic  regarding 
witchcraft,  the  opponent  of  the  judicial  use  of  torture,  had  been 
driven  from  Leipzig  in  1690  by  the  hostility  of  the  theologians. 
His  popularity  in  the  student  body  was  great.  Thomasius 
was  no  Pietist,  though  he  disliked  the  persecution  of  the  Piet 
ists,  and  had  done  his  utmost  to  aid  Francke  in  the  contest 
with  the  Leipzig  authorities.  The  Elector  of  Brandenburg, 
long  desirous  of  having  a  university  of  his  own,  improved  the 
exile  of  Thomasius  to  found  a  university  in  Halle,  in  1691, 
which  was  formally  opened  in  1694,  and  in  which  Thomasius 
was  to  lead  the  faculty  of  law  till  his  death. 

Meanwhile  Francke  had  many  difficulties  in  Erfurt.  His 
energetic  introduction  of  Pietistic  measures  roused  the  oppo 
sition  of  the  clergy  of  the  city.  Carpzov's  hostility  pursued 
him,  and  in  1691  he  was  expelled  by  the  authorities.  Spener 
now  procured  for  him  from  the  Elector  appointment  to  a  pro 
fessorship  in  Halle,  and  the  pastorate  of  the  neighboring  vil 
lage  of  Glaucha,  and  also  the  appointment  of  colleagues  of 
Pietistic  sympathies.  From  the  first  Francke  dominated  the 
theological  methods  and  instruction  in  Halle,  though  he  did 
not  become  formally  a  member  of  the  theological  faculty  till 
1698.  Till  his  death,  in  1727,  Francke  made  and  kept  Halle 
a  centre  of  Pietism. 

Francke  was  a  man  of  unbounded  energy  and  organizing 
genius.  His  parish  of  Glaucha  was  a  model  of  pastoral  faith 
fulness.  His  lectures  in  the  university  were  largely  exegetical 


500  FRANCKE  IN  HALLE.    MISSIONS 

and  experiential ;  and  his  combination  of  the  classroom  and 
parish  practice  was  highly  helpful  for  his  students.  In  1695 
he  began  a  school  for  poor  children,  and  such  was  its  fame  that 
children  from  outside  were  offered  to  him  in  such  numbers 
that  in  1696  he  established  his  famous  fitting  school,  the 
Pcedagogium.  To  these,  in  1697,  he  added  a  Latin  school. 
These  educational  foundations  were  soon  renowned,  and  all 
were  managed  in  the  spirit  of  Pietism.  At  his  death  two  thou 
sand  two  hundred  children  were  under  instruction.  In  1698 
he  established  his  famous  Orphan  House,  which  numbered  a 
hundred  and  thirty-four  inmates  when  he  died.  All  these 
foundations,  most  of  which  have  continued  to  the  present, 
were  begun  almost  without  means,  and  Francke  sincerely  be 
lieved  were  maintained  in  answer  to  prayer.  Gifts  flowed  in 
from  all  parts  of  Germany.  Without  doubting  Francke' s  faith, 
it  is  but  just  to  note  that  he  understood  the  art  of  honorable 
publicity,  and  of  enlisting  friends.  The  number  of  nobles  who 
were  patrons  of  his  foundations  was  really  remarkable.  One 
further  foundation  may  be  called  almost  his  own.  That  was 
the  Bible  Institute,  established  in  1710  by  his  friend,  Karl 
Hildebrand,  Freiherr  von  Canstein  (1667-1719),  for  the  publi 
cation  of  the  Scriptures  and  their  circulation  in  inexpensive 
form.  The  institute  has  done  a  noble  work  to  the  present  day. 

One  notable  feature  of  these  activities  in  Halle  was  the  zeal 
for  missions  there  aroused.  At  a  time  when  Protestants  gen 
erally  still  failed  to  recognize  the  missionary  obligation,  Francke 
and  his  associates  were  awake  to  it.  When  Frederick  IV  (1699- 
1730),  of  Denmark,  wished  to  send  the  first  Protestant  mission 
aries  to  India,  in  1705,  establishing  them  in  1706  in  Tranque- 
bar,  then  belonging  to  Denmark,  he  found  them  among 
Francke's  students  in  Halle,  Bartholomaus  Ziegenbalg  and 
Heinrich  Pliitchau.  During  the  eighteenth  century  not  less 
than  sixty  foreign  missionaries  went  forth  from  the  University 
of  Halle  and  its  associated  foundations,  of  whom  the  most 
famous  was  Christian  Friedrich  Schwartz  (1726-1798),  who 
labored,  from  1750  to  his  death,  in  India.  Certainly  Francke's 
name  deserves  high  place  on  the  roll  of  missionary  leadership. 

By  the  time  of  Francke's  death,  in  1727,  Pietism  had  passed 
its  high-water  mark.  It  produced  no  further  leaders  equal  in 
ability  to  Spener  and  Francke.  It  continued  to  spread  in  Ger 
many,  notably  in  Wiirttemberg.  A  statistical  estimate  is  diffi- 


RESULTS  OF  PIETISM  501 

cult,  as  Pietists  did  not  separate  from  the  Lutheran  Churches ; 
but  Pietism  undoubtedly  affected  Germany  very  widely  and 
for  good.  It  fostered  a  more  vital  type  of  piety.  It  greatly  im 
proved  the  spiritual  quality  of  the  ministry,  preaching,  and  the 
Christian  training  of  the  young.  It  increased  the  share  of  the 
laity  in  the  life  of  the  church.  It  greatly  augmented  familiarity 
with  the  Bible,  and  the  devotional  study  of  the  Scriptures. 
Its  shadows  were  its  insistence  on  a  conscious  conversion 
through  struggle  as  the  only  normal  method  of  entrance  into 
the  kingdom  of  God,  its  ascetic  attitude  toward  the  world, 
illustrated  in  Francke's  severe  repression  of  play  among  the 
children  in  his  foundations,  its  censorious  judgments  on  those 
who  were  not  Pietists  as  irreligious,  and  its  neglect  of  the  in 
tellectual  elements  in  religion.  It  produced  very  few  intellec 
tual  leaders.  But,  on  the  whole,  the  judgment  on  Pietism  must 
be  predominantly  favorable.  It  did  a  service  of  great  value 
for  the  religious  life  of  Protestant  Germany. 

One  fruit  of  Pietism  deserves  notice  in  a  contribution  of  value 
made  to  the  interpretation  of  church  history  by  one  of  the 
most  radical  of  the  Pietists,  Gottfried  Arnold  (1666-1714),  a 
friend  of  Spener,  for  a  short  time  a  professor  in  Giessen,  and 
thenceforward  living  in  comparative  retirement  in  Quedlinburg. 
Since  the  Reformation  church  history  had  been  polemic  and 
had  regarded  all  thinkers  as  to  be  rejected  whom  the  church 
of  their  own  age  rejected.  In  his  Unparteiische  Kirchen  und 
Ketzer-Historie  of  1699  and  1700  Arnold  introduced  a  new  con 
ception.  He  had  read  much  of  the  ancient  heretics.  No  man 
is  to  be  deemed  a  heretic  because  his  own  age  so  deemed  him. 
He  is  to  be  judged  on  his  own  merits,  and  even  the  views  of 
so-called  heretics  have  their  place  in  the  history  of  Christian 
thought.  As  is  always  a  danger  to  a  man  who  has  conceived 
a  fruitful  idea,  Arnold  pushed  his  interpretation  rather  to  the 
conclusion  that  there  had  been  more  truth  with  the  heretics 
than  with  the  orthodox.  Yet  he  gave  to  church  history  a 
forward  step  of  decided  importance. 

SECTION   VI.      ZINZENDORF  AND  MORAVIANISM 

One  of  the  most  notable  results  of  the  Pietistic  awakening, 
though  far  from  approved  by  the  Pietists  in  general,  was  the 
reconstitution  of  the  Moravian  Brethren,  under  the  leadership 


502  ZINZENDORF'S  EARLY  LIFE 

of  Zinzendorf.  Nicolaus  Ludwig,  Graf  von  Zinzendorf,  was 
born  in  Dresden,  on  May  26,  1700.  His  father  was  a  high 
official  of  the  Saxon  electoral  court  and  a  friend  of  Spener. 
Zinzendorf's  father  died  shortly  after  his  son's  birth,  the 
mother  married  again,  and  the  boy  was  brought  up,  rather 
solitary  and  introspective,  by  his  grandmother,  the  Pietistic 
Katherine  von  Gersdorff.  Even  as  a  boy  he  was  marked  by 
the  two  traits  which  always  characterized  his  religious  life — 
passionate  personal  devotion  to  Christ  and  the  conviction 
that  God  is  only  known  as  Christ,  at  least  in  Christianity. 
From  the  time  he  was  ten  till  his  seventeenth  year  he  studied 
in  Francke's  Poedagogium  in  Halle.  Its  rigor  repelled  him, 
but  he  gradually  came  to  appreciate  Francke's  zeal,  and  his 
religious  nature  was  quickened  in  1715  in  connection  with 
his  first  communion.  The  insistence  of  his  family  that  he  should 
enter  public  employment  sent  him  to  Wittenberg  from  1716 
to  1719  to  study  law.  Though  a  decided  Pietist,  his  experi 
ences  in  Wittenberg  gave  him  a  kindlier  feeling  than  before 
toward  orthodox  Lutheranism.  In  1719  and  1720  he  took  a 
long  journey  to  Holland  and  France,  forming  the  acquaintance 
of  many  distinguished  men,  and  making  his  religious  principles 
clearly,  though  tactfully,  evident.  On  his  return  journey 
through  Castell  he  fell  in  love  with  his  cousin,  but  he  thought 
Graf  Heinrich  XXIX,  of  Reuss,  a  more  favored  suitor,  and 
resigned  his  pretensions,  believing  that  God  thereby  had  indi 
cated  some  work  for  him  to  do.  He  ultimately  married,  in 
1722,  Graf  Heinrich's  sister,  Erdmute  Dorothea,  who  made 
him  a  most  sympathetic  wife. 

The  wishes  of  his  relatives  led  him  to  enter  the  electoral 
service  in  Dresden  in  1721.  Yet  he  was  primarily  interested 
in  cultivating  the  "heart-religion,"  in  the  Pietistic  sense, 
among  his  friends  in  Dresden,  and  even  more  on  his  estate  of 
Berthelsdorf,  about  seventy  miles  east  of  Dresden,  where  as 
patron  he  appointed  his  like-minded  friend,  Johann  Andreas 
Rothe,  to  the  pastorate.  Here  in  wholly  unlooked-for  fashion 
his  life-work  was  to  meet  him. 

The  old  Hussite  church  of  Bohemia  had  fallen  on  evil  days. 
Part  had  found  refuge  in  Poland,  where  it  had  long  maintained 
its  episcopal  constitution,  but  finding  the  difficulties  increas 
ing,  had  preserved  it  by  persuading  Frederick  Ill's  Calvin- 
istic  court  preacher  in  Berlin,  Daniel  Ernst  Jablonski,  of  the 


THE  MORAVIANS  503 

Polish  Hussite  church  by  ancestry  and  training,  to  accept 
ordination  to  the  bishopric  in  1699.  The  consequences  of  the 
Thirty  Years'  War  to  Bohemian  Protestantism  had  been  de 
structive,  and  it  had  persisted  in  Bohemia  and  the  neigh 
boring  province  of  Moravia  only  in  concealment  and  under 
persecution.  As  early  as  1722  the  German-speaking  Mora 
vians  began  to  seek  a  refuge  in  Saxony  under  the  leadership  of 
the  carpenter,  Christian  David.  Zinzendorf  allowed  them  to 
found  a  village  on  his  Berthelsdorf  estate,  which  they  named 
Herrnhut,  and  where  they  collected  in  considerable  numbers. 
Zinzendorf  at  first  paid  little  attention  to  these  immigrants  be 
sides  allowing  them  a  refuge,  but  by  1727  he  began  their  spiri 
tual  leadership.  The  task  was  hard  at  first.  The  refugees 
were  divided,  their  aim  was  a  separate  church,  while  that  of 
Zinzendorf  and  Rothe  was  incorporation  in  the  Saxon  Lutheran 
state  church,  though  with  special  additional  meetings  as  in 
Spener's  plan  of  collegia  pietatis.  On  the  other  hand,  local- 
customs  permitted  an  organized  village  to  give  itself  a  secular 
organization  and  make  its  own  rules.  Under  these  customs 
Herrnhut  chose  "elders"  for  its  secular  direction  in  1727. 
Zinzendorf,  as  lord  of  the  estate,  had  a  certain  indefinite  right 
of  leadership,  and  all  this  was  sealed  by  a  communion  service 
of  such  spiritual  power  in  Berthelsdorf  on  August  13,  1727, 
that  that  date  has  generally  been  reckoned  that  of  the  rebirth 
of  the  Moravian  Church. 

Out  of  these  institutions  for  the  leadership  of  the  village  of 
Herrnhut,  originally  secular,  a  spiritual  organization  soon 
grew.  An  executive  committee  of  four  developed  from  the 
eldership,  and  by  1730  was  regarded  as  exercising  ministerial 
functions.  A  general  eldership  was  formed,  of  which  the  first 
holder,  in  1733,  was  Leonhard  Dober.  To  Zinzendorf  the 
Herrnhut  society  soon  seemed  a  body  of  soldiers  of  Christ, 
to  advance  His  cause  at  home  and  abroad — a  new  Protestant 
monasticism  without  vows  or  celibacy,  but  bound  to  their 
Lord  by  daily  prayer  and  worship.  The  young  men  and  the 
young  women  were  separated  from  ordinary  family  life  by  1728, 
and  each  class  placed  under  strict  superintendence.  Children 
were  brought  up  away  from  their  parents — after  the  manner 
of  the  Halle  Orphan  House.  The  community  even  attempted 
to  regulate  choices  in  marriage.  The  ideal  was  that  of  a 
community  separate  from  the  world,  yet  ready  to  send  forces 


504  MORAVIAN  MISSIONS 

to  work  anywhere  for  Christ's  kingdom.  Yet  two  tendencies 
confused  this  development.  The  Moravian  element  would 
gladly  have  seen  the  establishment  of  a  separate  denomination, 
a  full  revival  of  the  ancient  Moravian  Church.  Zinzendorf 
clung  firmly  to  the  Pietistic  idea  of  an  ecclesiola  in  ecclesia. 
He  would  keep  them  part  of  the  Lutheran  state  church,  only 
a  special  group  within  it,  where  a  warmer  spiritual  life,  a  "  heart- 
religion,"  should  be  fostered.  The  movement  soon  met  much 
opposition,  not  merely  from  orthodox  Lutherans,  but  from 
Pietists,  both  by  reason  of  Herrnhut's  peculiarities,  and  as 
separatist.  On  the  whole,  the  separatist  tendencies  slowly  won 
the  upper  hand. 

The  Moravian  willingness  to  go  anywhere  in  the  service  of 
Christ  soon  gave  a  noble  missionary  development  to  the  move 
ment  which  it  has  never  lost.  No  Protestant  body  had  been 
so  awake  to  the  duty  of  missions,  and  none  is  so  consecrated 
to  this  service  in  proportion  to  its  numbers  to  the  present  day. 
A  journey  to  Copenhagen  to  attend  the  coronation  of  Chris 
tian  VI  (1730-1746)  of  Denmark  brought  Zinzendorf  into 
contact  with  natives  of  the  Danish  West  India  Islands  and  of 
Greenland.  Zinzendorf  returned  to  Herrnhut  aflame  with  mis 
sionary  enthusiasm.  As  a  result  Leonhard  Dober  and  David 
Nitschmann  began  a  mission  to  the  West  Indies  in  1732,  and 
Christian  David  and  others  to  Greenland  in  1733.  Two  years 
later  a  considerable  party,  led  by  August  Gottlieb  Spangenberg 
(1704-1792),  began  labors  in  Georgia.  For  this  outreaching 
work  Nitschmann  was  ordained  a  bishop — the  first  of  the  mod 
ern  Moravian  succession — by  Jablonski  in  1735. 

Meanwhile  Zinzendorf 's  relations  with  the  Saxon  government 
were  becoming  strained.  The  Austrian  authorities  complained, 
without  ground,  that  he  was  enticing  their  subjects.  Ecclesi 
astical  complaints  were  renewed,  and  on  March  20,  1736,  he 
was  banished  from  Saxony.  Zinzendorf  found  opportunity  to 
carry  on  his  work  in  Ronneburg  in  western  Germany  and  in 
the  Baltic  provinces.  In  1737  he  was  ordained  bishop  by 
Jablonski  in  Berlin.  In  1738-1739  he  journeyed  to  the  West 
India  Islands ;  in  1741  he  was  in  London,  where  Moravian  work 
had  been  several  years  in  progress.  By  December,  1741,  Zin 
zendorf  was  in  New  York,  and  on  Christmas  he  named  the  set 
tlement  which  Moravians  from  Georgia  were  beginning  to 
effect  in  Pennsylvania,  Bethlehem — a  town  destined  to  become 


THE  MORAVIAN  CHURCH  505 

the  American  headquarters  of  the  movement.  Zinzendorf  s 
sojourn  in  America  was  full  of  activities.  He  made  great  efforts 
toward  a  union  >of  all  the  scattered  German  Protestant  forces 
in  Pennsylvania,  he  began  missions  to  the  Indians,  he  organ 
ized  seven  or  eight  Moravian  congregations  and  planted  schools. 
Itineracy  was  established  under  the  superintendence  of  Peter 
Bohler.  In  January,  1743,  Zinzendorf  sailed  for  Europe,  and 
in  December,  1744,  Spangenberg  was  put  in  charge  of  all  the 
American  work  as  bishop.  Its  most  famous  Indian  mission 
ary  was  David  Zeisberger  (1721-1808),  who  worked  among  the 
Creeks  of  Georgia  from  1740,  and  from  1743  to  his  death  in 
labor  for  the  Iroquois. 

Herrnhut  thus  became  a  hive  of  missionary  activity.  Mis 
sions  were  begun  in  Surinam,  Guiana,  Egypt,  and  South  Africa. 
In  1771,  after  repeated  attempts,  a  permanent  mission  was 
established  in  Labrador.  The  names  of  its  early  mission  fields 
show  one  characteristic  of  Moravian  effort.  They  were  pre 
vailingly  hard  places,  requiring  peculiar  patience  and  devotion, 
and  this  trait  characterizes  Moravian  missionary  labors  to  the 
present. 

Meanwhile,  in  spite  of  Zinzendorf's  dislike  of  separatism, 
Moravianism  was  becoming  more  fully  a  church.  In  1742  it 
was  so  recognized  in  Prussia  by  the  government.  By  1745  the 
Moravian  Church  was  thoroughly  organized  with  bishops, 
elders,  and  deacons,  though  its  government  was,  and  still  is, 
more  Presbyterian  than  Episcopal.  The  English  Parliament 
by  a  law  of  1749  recognized  it  as  "an  ancient  Protestant  Epis 
copal  Church."  Yet  Zinzendorf  did  not  give  up  his  theory  of 
an  ecclesiola  in  ecclesia.  Negotiations  with  the  Saxon  authori 
ties  resulted  in  his  recall  from  banishment  in  1747,  the  accep 
tance  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  by  the  Moravian  body  the 
next  year,  and  its  recognition  in  1749  as  a  portion  of  the  Saxon 
state  church,  with  its  own  special  services.  By  this  time  Mora 
vianism  was  developing  a  liturgy  of  much  beauty  and  a  hym- 
nody  of  large  fulness. 

During  the  time  of  his  banishment  Zinzendorf  and  some  of  the 
Moravians  developed  certain  theological  and  cultural  peculiar 
ities  that  were  the  source  of  deserved  criticism.  His  emphasis 
on  relation  to  Christ  as  the  heart  of  religion  took  on  sometimes 
a  sentimental  expression  in  word  and  hymn.  Since  Christ,  to 
his  thinking,  was  the  Creator,  our  relation  to  God  the  Father  is 


506  MORAVIAN  CHARACTERISTICS 

as  to  the  Father  of  Christ.  Since  the  Holy  Spirit  effects  the 
new  birth,  the  designation  "Mother"  seemed  to  him  appropri 
ate.  Zinzendorf  always  made  much  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
and  brought  Christian  experience  into  connection  with  His 
wounds  in  a  way  that  was  at  once  fanciful  and  sentimental. 
Peculiarly  was  this  the  case  with  His  wounded  side.  Zinzen 
dorf  pictured  the  church  as  drawn  from  the  side  of  Christ  as 
Eve  from  that  of  Adam.  Zinzendorf  s  insistence  that  Chris 
tians  must  become  as  little  children  to  enter  the  kingdom  of 
God  led  to  much  puerility  of  expression.  These  peculiarities 
were  at  the  height  of  their  manifestation  between  1747  and  1749, 
but  in  large  measure  they  corrected  themselves.  This  period 
was  called  by  the  Moravians  themselves  "the  sifting  time." 
Zinzendorf  himself  ultimately  largely  turned  away  from  them. 
Yet,  at  the  most,  they  must  be  regarded  as  but  blemishes  on 
the  character  of  one  who  could  say  of  his  devotion  to  Christ, 
as  few  can:  "I  have  one  passion.  It  is  He." 

Zinzendorf 's  life  from  1749  to  1755  was  spent  mostly  in 
England.  His  property  had  been  spent  unstintedly  for  the 
Moravians,  and  he  now  found  himself  almost  bankrupt.  His 
debts  were  assumed,  as  was  fitting,  by  the  Moravian  body,  and 
gradually  discharged.  This  financial  need  led  to  a  growth  in 
Moravian  constitutional  development.  A  collegiate  director 
ate  was  established,  which  soon  became  a  board  of  control, 
by  which  Moravian  affairs  were  superintended,  and  the  taxes 
paid  by  the  several  congregations  soon  led  to  their  representa 
tion  in  a  general  synod,  meeting  at  regular  intervals. 

Zinzendorf  s  last  few  years  were  spent  chiefly  in  pastoral 
activities.  His  strength  had  been  lavishly  spent,  and  he  was 
bereaved  of  his  wife  and  only  son.  On  May  9,  1760,  he  died 
in  Herrnhut. 

The  Moravian  Church,  which  Zinzendorf  had  done  so  much 
to  renew  and  inspire,  was  firmly  grounded,  so  that  his  death 
made  no  serious  breach.  It  was  fortunate,  however,  that  its 
practical  leadership  fell  to  Spangenberg,  who  was  called  back 
from  America  to  Herrnhut  in  1762,  and  continued  his  guidance 
to  his  death,  thirty  years  later.  Not  a  man  of  genius  and  en 
thusiasm  like  Zinzendorf,  he  wras  marked  by  equal  devotion, 
great  practical  sense,  and  high  organizing  abilities.  Under  his 
strong,  wise  guidance  Moravianism  strengthened  and  grew; 
its  criticised  peculiarities  were  generally  discarded.  His  work 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  ENGLAND  507 

was  quiet  and  unpicturesque  but  wholly  useful.  The  Mo 
ravian  Church  took  its  accredited  place  among  the  families  of 
Christendom.  •  It  gained  increasing  good-will  in  Germany, 
though  sufficient  of  Zinzendorf's  ecclesioke  in  ecclesia  remained 
to  prevent  a  rapid  numerical  growth  in  that  land. 

SECTION  VII.      WESLEY  AND  METHODISM 

The  condition  of  religion  in  England  in  the  early  part  of  the 
eighteenth  century  has  already  been  described  (ante,  pp.  485- 
491).  The  end  of  the  struggles  of  the  seventeenth  century 
had  been  marked  by  a  general  spiritual  lethargy  in  the  estab 
lishment  and  among  Dissenters  alike.  Rationalism  had  pene 
trated  all  classes  of  religious  thinkers,  so  that  even  among  the 
orthodox  Christianity  seemed  little  more  than  a  system  of  mo 
rality  supported  by  divine  sanctions.  Butler  (ante,  pp,  489, 490) 
may  stand  as  typical.  His  frigid  probabilities  may  have  con 
vinced  some  intellects,  but  they  can  have  led  few  men  to  action. 
There  were  able  preachers,  but  the  characteristic  sermon  was 
the  colorless  essay  on  moral  virtues.  Outreaching  work  for 
the  unchurched  was  but  scanty.  The  condition  of  the  lower 
classes  was  one  of  spiritual  destitution.  Popular  amusements 
were  coarse,  illiteracy  wide-spread,  law  savage  in  its  enforce 
ment,  jails  sinks  of  disease  and  iniquity.  Drunkenness  was 
more  wide-spread  than  at  any  other  period  in  English  history. 

Furthermore,  Great  Britain  stood  on  the  eve  of  the  indus 
trial  revolution  that  was  to  transform  it  in  the  last  third 
of  the  eighteenth  century  from  agriculture  to  manufacture. 
James  Watt  (1736-1819)  patented  the  first  really  effective 
steam-engine  in  1769.  James  Hargreaves  (?-1778)  patented 
the  spinning-jenny  in  1770.  Richard  Arkwright  (1732-1792) 
brought  out  the  spinning-machine  in  1768.  Edmund  Cart- 
wright  (1743-1823)  invented  the  power-loom  in  1784.  Josiah 
Wedgwood  (1730-1795)  made  the  Staffordshire  potteries  effec 
tive  from  1762  onward.  The  industrial  and  social  changes, 
and  problems  consequent  upon  the  changes,  were  of  the  widest 
importance,  and  of  themselves  involved  readjustments  of  im 
mense  practical  religious  consequence. 

There  were  not  wanting  men  and  movements,  early  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  looking  toward  better  things.  Bishop 
Berkeley's  missionary  zeal  has  already  been  seen  (ante,  p.  489). 


508  THE  RELIGIOUS  SOCIETIES 

William  Law  was  not  only  a  vigorous  opponent  of  Deism 
(ante,  p.  488)  but  his  Serious  Call  to  a  Devout  and  Holy  Life 
of  1728  profoundly  influenced  John  Wesley,  and  remains  one 
of  the  monuments  of  English  hortatory  literature,  though  it  is 
to  be  feared  now  seldom  read.  The  Congregationalist,  Isaac 
Watts  (1674-1748),  long  since  forgotten  as  a  theologian,  has 
well  been  called  "the  founder  of  modern  English  hymnody." 
His  Hymns  of  1707  and  The  Psalms  of  David,  Imitated  in  the 
Language  of  the  New  Testament  of  1719  broke  down  the  prej 
udice  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  then  existing  in  non- 
prelatical  English-speaking  circles  against  the  use  of  all  but 
rhymed  passages  of  Scripture.  They  express  a  deep  and  vital 
piety. 

Some  combined  efforts  of  significance  were  being  made  for 
a  warmer  religious  life.  Such  were  the  "societies,"  the  earliest 
of  which  was  formed  by  a  group  of  young  men  in  London 
about  1678,  for  prayer,  reading  the  Scriptures,  the  cultivation 
of  a  religious  life,  frequent  communion,  aid  to  the  poor,  soldiers, 
sailors,  and  prisoners,  and  encouragement  of  preaching.  They 
spread  rapidly.  By  1700  there  were  nearly  a  hundred  in  Lon 
don  alone,  and  they  were  to  be  found  in  many  parts  of  England 
and  even  in  Ireland.  One  of  these  societies  was  formed  by 
John  Wesley's  father,  Samuel  Wesley,  in  Ep worth  in  1702. 
In  many  ways  they  resembled  Spener's  collegia  pietatis  (ante, 
p.  497),  but  they  had  no  Spener  to  further  them.  They  were 
composed  almost  exclusively  of  communicants  of  the  estab 
lishment.  Many  of  the  clergy  looked  upon  the  movement  as 
"enthusiastic,"  or  as  would  now  be  said  fanatical,  and  after 
1710  it  measurably  declined,  though  the  "societies"  were  to 
continue  and  be  of  importance  in  the  beginnings  of  Method 
ism.  These  "societies"  gave  the  pattern  to  a  more  outreach- 
ing  work,  initiated  by  Thomas  Bray  (1656-1730).  Bray  was 
appointed  commissary  of  Henry  Compton,  bishop  of  London 
(1675-1713),  in  Maryland  in  1696,  and  in  1699  and  1700  was 
in  that  colony  strengthening  Anglican  churches.  Impressed 
with  the  need  of  Bibles,  libraries,  and  religious  literature,  he 
founded  the  Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge,  on 
March  8,  1699.  Convocation  supported  it,  and  led  to  the 
foundation  on  June  27,  1701,  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation 
of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  which  was  to  develop  into  a 
great  missionary  society.  Both  have  carried  on  their  work  in 


THE  WESLEYS  509 

increasing  measure  to  the  present.  Both  were  strictly  Anglican 
and  to  the  work  of  the  latter-named  the  establishment  of  Epis 
copacy  in  NeW  England  and  its  development  in  the  American 
colonies  were  primarily  due. 

Yet  these  efforts  were  at  best  local  and  partial  in  their^  influ 
ence.  The  mass  of  the  people  of  England  was  in  spiritual 
lethargy,  yet  blindly  conscious  of  sin  and  convinced  of  the 
reality  of  'future  reward  and  retribution.  Emotions  of  loyalty 
to  Christ,  of  salvation  through  Him,  of  a  present  transform 
ing  faith  had  not  been  aroused.  It  needed  the  appeal  of  vivid 
spiritual  earnestness — directed  to  conviction  of  the  heart  rather 
than  to  considerations  of  prudence  or  cold  logical  argument. 
That  a  profound  transformation  was  effected  in  England,  the 
results  of  which  flowed  in  beneficent  streams  to  all  English- 
speaking  •  lands,  was  primarily  the  work  of  three  men — the 
brothers  John  and  Charles  Wesley  and  George  Whitefield- 
whose  labors  were  to  make  England  and  America  vastly  differ 
ent  spiritually,  and  have  put  those  lands  permanently  into 
debt  to  them. 

The  parents  of  the  Wesley  brothers  were  of  Non-Conformist 
ancestry.  Both  grandfathers  had  been  among  the  ejected  clergy 
of  1662.  Their  father,  Samuel  Wesley  (1662-1735),  had  pre 
ferred  the  ministry  of  the  establishment,  and  was,  from  1695  to 
his  death,  rector  of  the  rough  country  parish  of  Epworth.  A 
man  of  earnest  religious  disposition,  he  was  somewhat  unprac 
tical,  a  writer  of  a  Life  of  Christ  in  Verse  and  of  a  commentary 
on  the  book  of  Job.  Their  mother,  Susanna  (Annesley),  was 
a  woman  of  remarkable  strength  of  character,  like  her  husband 
a  devoted  Anglican.  The  sons  took  much  from  either  parent, 
but  perhaps  more  of  force  from  the  mother.  In  a  household 
of  nineteen  children,  even  if  eight  died  in  infancy,  hard  work 
and  stringent  economy  were  perforce  the  rule.  Of  this  large 
brood  John  was  the  fifteenth  and  Charles  the  eighteenth. 

John  Wesley  was  born  on  June  17,  1703,  Charles  on  Decem 
ber  18,  1707.  Both  were  saved  with  difficulty  from  the  burn 
ing  rectory  in  1709,  an  event  that  made  an  ineffaceable  impres 
sion  on  the  mind  of  John,  who  thenceforth  regarded  himself 
as  literally  ua  brand  snatched  from  the  burning."  In  1714 
John  entered  the  Charterhouse  School,  in  London,  and  Charles 
the  Westminster  School  two  years  later.  Both  boys  distin 
guished  themselves  for  scholarship.  In  1720  John  entered 


510      THE  METHODIST  CLUBS.    WHITEFIELD 

Christ  Church  College,  Oxford,  whither  Charles  followed  him 
six  years  after,  and  such  was  John's  intellectual  attainment 
that,  in  1726,  he  was  chosen  a  Fellow  of  Lincoln  College.  To 
become  a  candidate  for  that  honor  John  must  be  in  holy  orders, 
and  therefore,  on  September  25,  1725,  he  was  ordained  a  deacon. 
With  his  ordination  the  spiritual  struggles  began  which  were 
to  last  till  his  conversion,  in  1738,  and  perhaps  in  a  sense  beyond 
that  time. 

From  1726  to  1729  John  Wesley  was  for  the  most  part  his 
father's  assistant.  On  September  22,  1728,  he  was  ordained 
a  priest.  During  his  absence  from  Oxford,  in  the  spring  of 
1729,  Charles  Wesley  and  two  fellow  students,  Robert  Kirk- 
ham  and  William  Morgan,  formed  a  little  club,  primarily  for 
progress  in  their  studies,  but  which  soon  engaged  in  reading 
helpful  books  and  frequent  communion.  On  his  return  to 
Oxford  in  November,  1729,  John  Wesley  became  the  leader  of 
the  group,  which  soon  attracted  other  students.  Under  his 
guidance  it  sought  to  realize  William  Law's  ideals  of  a  conse 
crated  life.  Under  Morgan's  influence  it  began  visitation  of  the 
prisoners  in  the  Oxford  jail  in  August,  1730.  The  members 
fasted.  Their  ideals  were  high-churchly.  They  were  derided 
by  the  university.  They  were  called  the  "Holy  Club/'  and 
finally  some  student  hit  upon  a  nickname  that  stuck,  the 
"Methodists" — though  the  name  had  been  in  currency  in  the 
previous  century.  They  were  very  far  as  yet  from  what 
Methodism  was  to  be.  They  were  still  a  company  painfully 
bent  on  working  out  the  salvation  of  their  own  souls.  As 
matters  then  were,  they  more  resembled  the  Anglo-Catholic 
movement  of  the  nineteenth  century  than  the  Methodism  of 
history. 

An  important  accession  to  the  club,  early  in  1735,  was  George 
Whitefield.  Born  in  Gloucester  on  December  16, 1714,  the  son 
of  an  inn-keeper,  he  had  grown  up  in  poverty,  entering  Oxford 
in  1733.  A  severe  illness  in  the  spring  of  1735  brought  a  crisis 
in  his  religious  experience,  from  which  he  emerged  in  joyous 
consciousness  of  peace  with  God.  In  June,  1736,  Whitefield 
sought  and  received  episcopal  ordination,  and  at  once,  young 
as  he  was,  began  his  marvellous  career  as  a  preacher.  No 
Anglo-Saxon  of  the  eighteenth  century  showed  such  pulpit 
power.  A  man  absolutely  without  denominational  feeling,  in 
an  age  when  such  feelings  were  usually  intense,  he  was  ready 


WHITEFIELD.    THE  WESLEYS  IN  GEORGIA    511 

to  preach  anywhere,  and  in  any  pulpit  open  to  him.  Sometimes 
censorious  as  to  the  genuineness  of  religious  experiences  unlike 
his  own,  his  nature  was  in  the  highest  degree  simple  and  un- 
self-seeking.  His  message  was  the  Gospel  of  God's  forgiving 
grace,  and  of  peace  through  acceptance  of  Christ  by  faith,  and 
a  consequent  life  of  joyful  service.  His  few  printed  sermons 
give  little  sense  of  his  power.  Dramatic,  pathetic,  appeal 
ing,  with  a  voice  of  marvellous  expressiveness,  the  audiences 
of  two  continents  were  as  wax  melted  before  him.  A  large 
part  of  his  active  ministry  was  spent  in  America.  In  1738  he 
was  in  Georgia.  In  1739  he  was  back  in  America,  and  his 
preaching  in  New  England  in  1740  was  accompanied  by  the 
greatest  spiritual  upheaval  ever  there  witnessed,  the  "Great 
Awakening";  nor  was  his  success  less  in  the  middle  colonies, 
though  there  and  in  New  England  there  was  great  division  of 
feeling  as  to  the  permanent  spiritual  value  of  his  work.  The 
years  1744  to  1748  saw  him  again  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic, 
once  more  in  1751  and  1752;  again  in  1754  and  1755.  His 
sixth  visit  was  from  1763  to  1765.  In  1769  he  came  for  his  last 
preaching  tour,  and  died  in  Newburyport,  Mass.,  on  September 
30,  1770.  He  had  given  himself  unstintedly  to  the  service  of 
the  American  churches  of  every  Protestant  family.  He  was 
no  organizer.  He  left  no  party  to  bear  his  name,  but  he  awak 
ened  thousands. 

None  of  the  leaders  of  the  Methodist  Club  was  destined  long 
to  remain  in  Oxford,  nor  did  their  movement  have  much  influ 
ence  on  the  university,  which  was  then  in  scholastic  and  re 
ligious  ebb.  The  death  of  their  father  on  April  25,  1735,  whom 
John  Wesley  would  gladly  have  succeeded,  if  possible,  in  Ep- 
worth,  left  the  Wesleys  less  bound  to  home,  and  both  now 
gained  employment  as  missionaries  to  the  new  colony  of  Georgia, 
the  settlement  of  which  had  been  begun  by  General  Oglethorpe, 
in  1733.  They  sailed  in  October,  1735.  On  the  voyage  they 
were  unremitting  in  religious  exercises  and  efforts  for  their 
fellow  passengers;  but  in  the  ship  was  a  company  of  twenty- 
six  Moravians,  headed  by  Bishop  David  Nitschmann.  The 
cheerful  courage  of  this  company  in  a  storm  convinced  John 
Wesley  that  the  Moravians  had  a  trust  in  God  that  was  not 
yet  his.  From  them  he  learned  much.  Soon  after  reaching 
Savannah  he  met  Spangenberg  (ante,  pp.  504-506),  who  asked 
him  the  embarrassing  question :  "Do  you  know  Jesus  Christ?" 


512    THE  WESLEYS  IN  GEORGIA.    MORAVIANISM 

Wesley  answered:  "I  know  He  is  the  Saviour  of  the  world." 
Spangenberg  responded  :  "True,  but  do  you  know  He  has  saved 
you?" 

The  Wesleys'  labors  in  Georgia  were  strenuous,  yet  most  un 
successful.  Charles  Wesley  returned  home  in  disgust  and  ill 
health  in  1736.  John  continued.  He  showed  his  marvellous 
linguistic  abilities  by  conducting  services  in  German,  French, 
and  Italian.  In  May,  1737,  he  founded  a  little  society  in 
Savannah  for  cultivating  the  warmer  religious  life.  He  worked 
indefatigably,  yet  with  little  peace  of  mind  or  comfort  to  others. 
He  was  a  punctilious  high-churchman.  He  lacked  tact.  A 
conspicuous  case  was  that  of  Sophy  Hopkey,  a  woman  in  every 
way  suitable  to  be  his  wife.  He  gave  her  and  her  friends  every 
encouragement  to  believe  his  intentions  earnest,  but  he  see 
sawed  up  and  down  between  clerical  celibacy  and  possible 
matrimony.  A  vein  of  superstition  always  present  in  Wesley, 
which  led  him  to  decide  important  questions  by  the  first  verse 
of  Scripture  to  which  he  should  open,  or  by  drawing  lots,  led 
him  now  to  the  latter  method  of  decision  as  to  the  marriage. 
The  lot  fell  adverse,  and  Wesley  naturally  aroused  the  resent 
ment  of  the  young  woman  and  of  her  relatives.  In  a  pique  she 
married  hastily  another  suitor.  The  husband  objected  to  her 
continuance  in  attendance  on  Wesley's  intimate  religious  dis 
cussions.  Wesley  now  felt  that  she  was  not  making  proper 
preparation  for  communion,  and  refused  her  the  sacrament. 
No  wonder  her  friends  charged  that  this  was  the  act  of  a  dis 
gruntled  suitor.  Wesley's  influence  in  Georgia  was  at  an  end. 
Suits  were  started  against  him.  He  had  to  leave  the  colony 
by  stealth.  On  February  1,  1738,  John  Wesley  was  back  in 
England.  As  on  his  outward  voyage,  he  had  feared  death.  In 
his  bitterness  of  disappointment  he  could  only  say :  "  I  have  a 
fair  summer  religion."  Yet  he  was  a  preacher  of  marked  power, 
he  had  labored  unsparingly.  He  had  made  a  good  many  mis 
takes,  but  they  were  not  those  which  show  lack  of  Christian 
consecration. 

Fortunately  for  their  distressed  state  of  mind,  within  a  week 
of  John  Wesley's  return  both  brothers  were  in  familiar  inter 
course  with  a  Moravian,  Peter  Bohler,  delayed  in  London  till 
May  on  his  way  to  Georgia.  Bohler  taught  a  complete  self- 
surrendering  faith,  an  instantaneous  conversion,  and  a  joy  in 
believing.  But  though  before  sailing  Bohler  organized  a 


JOHN  WESLEY'S  CONVERSION  513 

"society,"  later  to  be  known  as  the  "Fetter-Lane  Society,"  of 
which  John  Wesley  was  one  of  the  original  members,  neither 
brother  was  as  yet  at  peace.  That  experience,  his  "  conversion," 
came  to  Charles  Wesley,  then  suffering  from  a  serious  illness, 
on  May.  21,  1738.  On  Wednesday,  May  24,  the  transforming 
experience  came  to  John.  That  evening,  as  he  recorded,  he 
went  unwillingly  to  an  Anglican  "society"  in  Aldersgate  Street, 
London,  and  heard  Luther's  preface  to  the  Commentary  on 
Romans  read.  "About  a  quarter  before  nine,  while  he  [Luther] 
was  describing  the  change  which  God  works  in  the  heart  through 
faith  in  Christ,  I  felt  my  heart  strangely  warmed.  I  felt  I  did 
trust  in  Christ,  Christ  alone,  for  salvation;  and  an  assurance 
was  given  me,  that  He  had  taken  away  my  sins,  even  mine,  and 
saved  me  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death."  Of  the  far-reaching 
significance  of  this  experience  there  can  be  no  question.  It  de 
termined  thenceforth  Wesley's  estimate  of  the  normal  mode  of 
entrance  on  the  Christian  life.  It  was  the  light  of  all  his  theo- 
logic  insight.  Yet  it  was  in  some  measure  gradually,  even  after 
it,  and  by  preaching  and  observing  a  similar  work  in  others  and 
by  communion  with  God,  that  he  entered  into  full  freedom  from 
fear  and  complete  joy  in  believing. 

John  Wesley  determined  to  know  more  of  the  Moravians,  who 
had  helped  him  thus  far.  Less  than  three  weeks  after  his  con 
version  he  was  on  his  way  to  Germany.  He  met  Zinzendorf 
in  Marienborn,  spent  two  weeks  in  Herrnhut,  and  in  Septem 
ber,  1738,  was  back  in  London.  It  was  a  happy  visit  for  Wes 
ley.  He  saw  much  to  admire.  Yet  he  was  not  pleased  with 
all.  He  felt  that  Zinzendorf  was  treated  with  too  great  defer 
ence,  and  that  Moravian  piety  was  not  without  its  subjective 
limitations.  Much  as  he  owed  to  the  Moravians,  Wesley  was 
too  active  in  religious  attitude,  too  little  mystical,  too  outreach- 
ing  to  men  in  their  wider  needs,  to  be  fully  a  Moravian. 

John  and  Charles  Wesley  now  preached  as  opportunities 
offered,  finding  many  pulpits  closed  to  their  "enthusiasm,"  and 
speaking  chiefly  in  the  "societies"  in  and  about  London. 
Early  in  1739  Whitefield  was  developing  a  great  work  in  Bris 
tol,  and  there  on  February  17  he  began  preaching  in  the  open 
to  the  coal  miners  of  Kingswood.  He  now  entered  into  friendly 
relations  with  Howel  Harris  (1714-1773),  who  had  been  work 
ing  with  great  success,  since  1736,  as  a  lay  preacher  in  Wales. 
Whitefield  now  invited  John  Wesley  to  Bristol.  Wesley  hesi- 


514  METHODISM  ORGANIZED 

tated  about  field-preaching;  but  the  opportunity  to  proclaim 
the  Gospel  to  the  needy  was  irresistible,  and  on  April  2  he  began 
in  Bristol  what  was  thenceforth  to  be  his  practice  for  more 
than  fifty  years,  as  long  as  strength  permitted.  Charles  Wes 
ley  soon  followed  his  example.  While  without  Whitefield's 
dramatic  power,  John  Wesley  was  a  preacher  with  few  equals 
in  popular  effectiveness — earnest,  practical,  fearless.  Thence 
forward  he  was  to  tour  England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland.  At 
tacked,  especially  in  the  early  part  of  his  ministry,  in  peril 
from  mob  violence,  no  danger  could  daunt  him,  or  interruption 
could  check  him.  Under  his  preaching,  as  under  that  of  White- 
field,  remarkable  exhibitions  of  bodily  excitement  were  fre 
quent.  Men  and  women  cried  out,  fainted,  were  torn  with 
convulsions.  To  both  preachers  these  seemed  the  working 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  or  the  visible  resistance  of  the  devil. 
They  are  the  frequent  accompaniments  of  great  religious  ex 
citement  among  the  ignorant  and  uncontrolled,  and  the  dis 
favor  with  which  they  were  regarded  accounts  for  much  of  the 
opposition  which  these  preachers  encountered  from  the  regular 
clergy. 

John  Wesley's  gifts  as  an  organizer  were  pre-eminent.  Yet 
the  creation  of  Methodism  was  a  gradual  work — an  adaptation 
of  means  to  circumstances.  In  Bristol  he  founded  in  1739  his 
first  really  Methodist  "society,"  and  began  the  erection  of  the 
first  chapel  there  on  May  12, 1739.  Late  that  year  he  secured  in 
London  an  old  "foundery,"  which  became  the  first  chapel  there. 

Thus  far,  in  London,  the  Methodists  had  also  joined  in  the 
Moravian  Fetter-Lane  Society,  which  Peter  Bohler  had  founded 
in  1738  (ante,  p.  513).  Wesley's  ideals  were  leading  him  away 
from  Moravianism.  This  separation  was  increased  when,  in 
October,  1739,  Philipp  Heinrich  Molther,  just  come  from  Zin- 
zendorf,  asserted  in  Fetter-Lane,  that  if  any  man  had  doubts 
he  had  no  true  faith,  and  should  absent  himself  from  the  sacra 
ments  and  prayer,  awaiting  in  silence  till  God  should  renew 
his  religious  hope.  Such  teaching  found  little  sympathy  from 
Wesley's  strenuous  activity.  The  Fetter-Lane  Society  was 
divided.  Wesley  and  his  friends  withdrew  and  founded  a 
purely  Methodist  "United  Society"  in  the  Foundery,  on  July 
23,  1740.  Wesley  continued  on  friendly  terms  with  some  of 
the  Moravians,  but  thenceforth  the  movements  were  indepen 
dent  of  each  other. 


METHODISM  ORGANIZED  515 

Wesley  had  no  desire  or  intention  of  breaking  with  the 
Church  of  England.  He  did  not,  therefore,  found  churches, 
but  took  up  into  service  the  device  of  the  long-existing  "re 
ligious  societies,"  but  these  should  now  consist  only  of  converted 
persons.  ;  These  "  societies "  were  from  the  first  divided  into 
"bands,"  or  groups,  within  the  society,  for  mutual  cultivation 
of  the  Christian  life.  This  was  a  Moravian  device ;  but  experi 
ence  soon  showed  Wesley  something  more  efficient.  Soon 
after  the  Bristol  society  was  formed  Wesley  hit  on  the  plan  of 
giving  "society  tickets"  to  those  whom  he  found  sufficiently 
grounded  to  be  full  members,  and  receiving  others  on  trial. 
These  tickets  were  renewable  quarterly,  and  furnished  a  ready 
means  of  sifting  the  society.  The  debt  on  the  Bristol  chapel 
led  to  a  yet  more  important  arrangement.  On  February  15, 
1742,  the  members  were  divided  into  "classes"  of  about  twelve 
persons,  each  under  a  "class  leader,"  charged  to  collect  a  penny 
weekly  from  each  member.  This  system  was  introduced  in 
London  on  March  25.  Its  advantages  for  spiritual  oversight 
and  mutual  watch  were  soon  even  more  apparent  than  its  finan 
cial  merits.  It  soon  became  one  of  the  characteristic  fea 
tures  of  Methodism,  though  the  older  "  bands,"  also,  long  con 
tinued. 

Wesley  would  have  preferred  to  have  all  preaching  by  or 
dained  men,  but  few  of  the  clergy  were  sympathetic  with  the 
movement.  A  lay  preacher,  Joseph  Humphreys,  was  helping 
him  as  early  as  1738 ;  but  extensive  use  was  not  made  of  this 
agency  till  1742,  when  Thomas  Maxfield  became  regularly  the 
earliest  of  what  soon  became  a  considerable  company.  The 
growth  of  the  movement  developed  other  lay  officers,  "stew 
ards,"  to  care  for  property,  teachers  for  schools,  "visitors  of 
the  sick,"  for  the  duties  which  their  names  implied.  At  first 
Wesley  visited  all  "societies,"  which  were  chiefly  in  the  regions 
of  London  and  Bristol,  but  the  task  soon  became  too  great. 
In  1744  he  had  the  preachers  meet  him  in  London — the  first 
of  the  "Annual  Conferences."  Two  years  later  the  field  was 
divided  into  "circuits,"  with  travelling  preachers  and  more 
stationary  leaders  to  "assist  chiefly  in  one  place."  Soon  an 
"assistant,"  later  called  a  "superintendent,"  was  placed  in 
charge  of  each  "circuit."  Wesley  endeavored  by  suitable 
publications  to  aid  the  intellectual  development  of  his  lay 
preachers  and  secured  study  as  far  as  possible.  He  tried  in 


516  WESLEY'S  THEOLOGY 

vain  to  obtain  episcopal  ordination  for  them;  but  would  not 
allow  the  sacraments  to  be  administered  by  unordained  men. 

While  Wesley  stood  theologically  on  the  common  basis  of 
Evangelical  doctrinal  tradition  and  regarded  his  "  societies"  as 
part  of  the  Church  of  England,  two  disputes  led  to  considerable 
controversy.  One  was  regarding  perfection.  Wesley  believed 
it  possible  for  a  Christian  to  attain  right  ruling  motives — love 
to  God  and  to  his  neighbor — and  that  such  attainment  would 
free  from  sin.  To  Wesley's  cautious  and  sober  judgment  this 
was  an  aim  rather  than  a  frequently  completed  achievement — 
however  it  may  have  appeared  to  some  of  his  followers.  No 
man  was  ever  more  positive  than  he  that  salvation  evidences 
itself  in  a  life  of  active,  strenuous  obedience  to  the  will  of  God. 

A  second  dispute  was  regarding  predestination.  Wesley,  like 
the  Church  of  England  generally  of  his  time,  was  Arminian,  but 
he  had  derived  a  special  parental  hostility  to  Calvinism,  which 
seemed  to  him  paralyzing  to  moral  effort.  Whitefield  was 
Calvinistic.  A  hot  interchange  of  letters  took  place  between 
the  two  Evangelists  in  1740  and  1741.  Their  good  personal 
relations  were  soon  restored  in  large  measure.  Whitefield 
found  a  supporter,  in  1748,  in  Selina,  countess  of  Huntingdon 
(1707-1791),  a  wealthy  widow,  a  convert  to  Methodism,  but 
far  too  dominant  a  character  to  yield  to  Wesley's  insistent 
leadership.  She  would  be  her  own  Wesley,  and,  like  Wesley, 
founded  and  superintended  " societies"  and  chapels — the  first  in 
Brighton  in  1761 — thus  beginning  the  "  Lady  Huntingdon's  Con 
nection."  She  made  Whitefield  her  chaplain.  Her  "Connec 
tion"  was  Calvinist.  In  1769  the  predestinarian  controversy 
broke  out  with  renewed  intensity.  At  the  "Conference"  of 
1770,  Wesley  took  a  strongly  Arminian  position.  Whitefield 
died  that  year,  but  Wesley  was  fiercely  attacked  by  Augustus 
Toplady  (1740-1778),  author  of  the  hymn  "Rock  of  Ages." 
Wesley  was  defended  by  his  devoted  disciple,  the  Swiss  John 
William  de  la  Flechere  (1729-1785),  who  had  settled  in  England 
and  accepted  a  living  in  the  establishment  in  1760  (Fletcher  of 
Madeley),  where  he  was  to  do  notable  work.  The  effect  of 
these  discussions  was  to  confirm  the  Arminian  character  of 
Wesleyan  Methodism.  Yet  "Lady  Huntingdon's  Connection" 
and  these  Calvinistic  Dissenters  must  be  regarded  as  parallel 
rather  than  as  hostile  movements.  Their  fundamental  spirit 
was  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  Wesley. 


METHODISM  IN  AMERICA  517 

The  Methodist  movement  grew  enormously.  John  Wesley 
had  many  friends  and  assistants,  but  few  intimates  who  shared 
his  responsibilities.  His  brother  Charles  long  had  part  in  his  con 
stant  travels,  but  Charles  had  not  the  iron  constitution  of  John. 
After  1756  Charles  itinerated  seldom.  He  labored  in  Bristol, 
and  from  1771  to  his  death  on  March  29,  1788,  he  preached  in 
London.  He  was  always  more  conservative  than  John,  and 
more  Anglican.  His  great  service  was  as  the  hymn-writer, 
not  merely  of  Methodism,  but  of  all  English-speaking  Chris 
tianity.  John's  unwise  marriage  to  a  widow,  Mrs.  Mary 
Vazeille,  in  1751,  was  unhappy.  He  devoted  himself  all  the 
more  unreservedly  to  his  work.  Over  all  the  multitudinous 
concerns  of  Methodism  he  exercised  a  wise  but  absolute  au 
thority.  Naturally,  as  the  "societies"  grew  and  preachers  mul 
tiplied  pressure  rose  for  authority  to  administer  the  sacraments, 
this  Wesley  resisted  long;  but  episcopally  ordained  men  were 
few,  and  the  force  of  events  made  the  pressure  irresistible  in 
spite  of  Wesley's  insistence  that  his  movement  was  within  the 
establishment. 

Methodism  was  carried  to  America  by  Philip  Embury  (1728- 
1773),  who  began  work  in  New  York  in  1766,  and  Robert 
Strawbridge  (?-1781),  who  was  laboring  in  Maryland  about  the 
same  time.  A  vigorous  early  preacher  was  Captain  Thomas 
Webb  (1724-1796)  of  the  British  army.  So  promising  was  the 
work  that,  in  1771,  Wesley  sent  over  Francis  Asbury  (1745- 
1816) — a  most  wise  choice.  These  were  all  lay  preachers.  By 
1773  the  first  American  "Conference"  was  held  in  Philadelphia. 
Then  came  the  storm  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  but  Methodism 
grew  in  spite  of  it.  With  peace,  in  1783,  dependence  on  Eng 
land  was  no  longer  desirable,  and  the  sacramental  question  was 
even  more  pressing  than  in  England,  as  in  many  regions  of  the 
United  States  there  were  no  Episcopal  Churches  to  which  the 
Methodists  could  resort.  Wesley  had  tried  in  vain,  in  1780, 
to  procure  ordination  for  clergymen  for  America  from  the  bishop 
of  London.  He  had  long  been  convinced  that  bishops  and 
presbyters  in  the  ancient  church  were  one  order.  He  therefore, 
as  a  presbyter,  felt  empowered  to  ordain  in  case  of  necessity. 
At  Bristol,  on  September  1,  1784,  he  and  his  intimate  disci 
ple,  Thomas  Coke  (1747-1814),  like  Wesley  a  presbyter  of 
the  establishment,  ordained  Richard  Whatcoat  and  Thomas 
Vasey  as  presbyters  for  America ;  and  the  next  day,  "  assisted 


518  WESLEY'S  ORDINATIONS 

by  other  ordained  ministers"  "set"  Coke  "apart  as  a  superin 
tendent"  for  the  same  work.  This  was,  indeed,  a  breach  with 
the  Church  of  England,  though  Wesley  did  not  then  see  it  as 
such.  His  brother  Charles  disliked  the  act.  The  necessity 
was  great,  and  no  non-prelatical  believer  can  blame  Wesley. 
Regret  has  often  been  expressed  that  Wesley  and  the  church 
of  his  affections  were  thus  compelled  to  separate.  It  would 
have  been  of  infinite  advantage  if  some  solution  other  than 
division  could  have  been  found;  but  in  the  existing  state  of  ideals 
and  organization  it  seems  well-nigh  impossible  to  conceive  what 
adjustment  could  then  have  been  proposed  with  success. 

Under  date  of  September  10,  1784,  Wesley  notified  his  action 
to  the  American  Methodists,  and  also  informed  them  that  he 
had  appointed  Asbury  as  well  as  Coke  "superintendents."  In 
December,  1784,  Wesley's  newly  consecrated  ministers  held  a 
"conference"  in  Baltimore,  at  which  Asbury  was  ordained 
"elder"  and  "superintendent,"  and  it  was  "agreed  to  form  a 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  By  1788  Coke  and  Asbury 
were  called  "bishops,"  and  that  title  thenceforth  supplanted 
"superintendent"  in  America.  Once  begun,  Wesley  in  the 
course  of  the  next  few  years  ordained  ministers  for  Scotland, 
Antigua,  Newfoundland,  and  finally  England. 

Another  event  of  1784  was  of  great  importance.  Wesley 
had  been  thus  far  the  controlling  force  in  Methodism.  By  a 
"Deed  of  Declaration,"  of  February  28,  he  now  provided  that 
those  who  should  preach  in  the  chapels  should  be  such  as  the 
"Conference"  should  recognize,  and  otherwise  defined  the  pow 
ers  of  that  body.  It  was  a  great  step  toward  the  self-govern-, 
ment  of  Methodism. 

Wesley's  strength  and  activities  continued  unabated  almost 
to  the  end.  On  March  2,  1791,  he  died  in  London,  having  done 
a  work  which  had  largely  revolutionized  the  religious  condition 
of  the  English  lower  and  middle  clasess,  and  was  even  more 
largely  to  affect  America. 

SECTION  VIII.      SOME  EFFECTS  OF  METHODISM 

The  great  Wesleyan  revival  was  felt  beyond  the  range  of  its 
nominal  adherents.  Its  influence  on  the  older  Non-Conformist 
bodies  was  stimulating  though  very  unequal.  Their  condition 
in  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  one  of  decay. 


THE  EVANGELICALS  519 

Their  leaders  looked  askance  at  Wesley  and  Whitefield  at  first ; 
but  as  the  revival  continued  the  younger  men  caught  its  zeal. 
This  was  especially  the  case  among  the  Congregationalists, 
who  profited  most  of  all.  Their  preaching  was  quickened,  their 
zeal  revived,  their  numbers  rapidly  increased.  Many  acces 
sions  came  to  them  from  those  awakened  by  Methodism  to 
whom  the  Methodist  discipline  was  irksome.  Many  came  to 
them  from  parishes  of  the  establishment.  By  1800  the  Con 
gregationalists  occupied  a  very  different  position  in  England 
from  that  of  1700.  The  Particular  Baptists  also  shared  in 
this  growth,  though  to  less  extent,  since  their  Calvinism  was 
intense  and  antagonistic  to  Wesleyan  Arminianism.  The  Gen 
eral  Baptists,  in  spite  of  a  considerable  leaven  of  Socinianism, 
also  gained  by  the  revival.  They  were  divided — the  General 
Baptist  New  Connection  of  1770,  being  Evangelical.  The  Pres 
byterians,  on  the  other  hand,  were  almost  unaffected.  Arianism 
and  Socinianism  were  dominant  among  them.  Their  numbers 
dwindled.  Nor  were  the  Quakers  much  moved.  Their  noble 
humanitarian  zeal  was  never  more  manifest,  but  the  revi 
val  methods  were  too  foreign  to  their  spirit  to  make  much  im 
pression. 

Wesley  won  many  sympathizers  in  the  establishment. 
These  men  were  generally  in  agreement  with  his  religious  em 
phases,  on  conversion,  a  confident  faith,  a  religious  life  mani 
fested  in  active  work  for  others.  On  the  other  hand,  they 
adopted  few  of  his  peculiar  methods,  and  in  general  were  marked 
theologically  by  an  extremely  moderate  Calvinism  rather  than 
by  his  aggressive  Arminianism.  Whitefield  was  the  spiritual 
father  of  many.  They  were  never  a  body.  They  were  rather 
a  way  ofuthinking,  and  to  it  the  name  Evangelical  or  low- 
church  was  given.  Conspicuous  among  these  Evangelicals  were 
John  Newton  (1725-1807),  once  a  slave-dealing  shipmaster. 
Converted,  he  became  one  of  the  most  helpful  of  preachers,  first 
in  Olney  and  then  as  rector  of  St.  Mary  Woolnoth  in  London. 
His  hymns  express  his  cheerful,  confident  faith. 

Thomas  Scott  (1747-1821),  Newton's  successor  in  Olney, 
was  best  known  for  his  Family  Bible  with  Notes — a  commentary 
of  immense  popularity  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic.  Richard 
Cecil  (1748-1810)  in  later  life  was  one  of  the  most  influential 
preachers  in  London.  Joseph  Milner  (1744-1797)  made  Hull 
an  Evangelical  stronghold  and  won  much  influence  through  his 


520  EMINENT  EVANGELICALS 

History  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  continued  after  his  death  by 
his  brother,  Isaac,  in  which  he  emphasized  the  development 
of  Christian  biography  rather  than  the  disputes  of  Christi 
anity.  Isaac  Milner  (1750-1820),  was  long  a  professor  in 
Cambridge  and  aided  in  making  the  tone  of  that  university 
largely  Evangelical,  a  work  which  was  continued  there  in  power 
by  Charles  Simeon  (1759-1836). 

Several  not  in  clerical  ranks  were  instrumental  in  the  spread 
of  Evangelical  opinions.  Such  was  William  Cowper  (1731- 
1800),  the  greatest  English  poet  of  the  latter  half  of  the  eight 
eenth  century,  and  Newton's  warm  friend.  In  Hannah  More 
(1745-1833)  Evangelicalism  had  a  supporter  personally  ac 
quainted  with  the  literary,  artistic,  and  theatrical  circles  of 
London,  a  writer  of  tracts  and  stories  of  unbounded  popularity 
and  herself  of  generous  and  self-denying  philanthropy.  Zachary 
Macaulay  (1768-1838),  father  of  the  historian,  was  a  deter 
mined  opponent  of  the  slave  trade.  That  evil  had  received 
John  Wesley's  severest  condemnation.  It  had  been  vigorously 
opposed  by  the  Quakers.  Its  most  effective  enemy  was  one 
of  the  most  eminent  of  Evangelical  laymen,  William  Wilber- 
force  (1759-1833).  Wealthy,  popular,  and  a  member  of  Parlia 
ment,  he  was  "  con  verted"  in  1784  through  the  instrumentality 
of  Isaac  Milner.  In  1797  he  published  his  Practical  View  of  the 
Prevailing  Religious  System  of  Professed  Christians  in  the  Higher 
and  Middle  Classes  in  this  Country  Contrasted  with  real  Christian 
ity.  It  proved  one  of  the  most  popular  of  Evangelical  treatises. 
In  1787  he  began  his  lifelong  battle  with  slavery,  resulting  in 
the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  in  1807,  and  of  slavery  itself 
throughout  the  British  dominions  in  1833. 

The  Methodist  movement  was  forward-looking  in  its  philan 
thropic  sympathies,  and  the  Evangelicals  shared  this  trait. 
Methodism,  under  Wesley's  leadership,  sought  to  aid  its  poorer 
members  financially,  to  provide  work,  to  care  for  the  sick,  to 
furnish  schools  and  cheap  reading,  and  to  overcome  the  coarse 
ness  and  brutality  of  the  lower  classes. 

The  awakening  of  the  new  spirit  of  humanitarianism  had  one 
of  its  noblest  illustrations  in  John  Howard  (1726-1790),  a  quiet, 
religious,  country  landlord,  interested  in  schools  and  model 
cottages,  a  worshipper  in  Congregational  and  Baptist  congre 
gations;  Howard  was  chosen  high  sheriff  of  Bedford  in  1773. 
He  was  inexpressibly  shocked  at  the  moral  and  physical  filth 


NEW  RELIGIOUS  AGENCIES  521 

of  the  jails,  their  officers  supported  by  what  they  could  wring 
from  the  prisoners,  not  by  salaries;  no  proper  separation  of 
prisoners,  no  release  for  those  acquitted  till  their  fees  were  dis 
charged.  Thorough  in  all  that  he  did,  Howard  visited  prac 
tically  all  the  jails  of  England,  and  laid  the  horrible  results 
before  Parliament  in  1774.  He  then  did  a  similar  work  for 
Scotland,  Ireland,  and  the  Continent.  Much  remained  to  be 
done,  but  he  deserves  the  title  of  the  "father  of  prison  reform." 
His  last  years  were  devoted  to  equally  self-sacrificing  efforts 
to  ascertain  methods  to  prevent  the  spread  of  the  plague.  His 
devotion  cost  him  his  life  in  southern  Russia. 

The  Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge  had  been 
founded  in  1699  (ante,  p.  508),  but  the  revival  movement  gave 
a  great  impulse  to  the  diffusion  of  Christian  literature.  Wesley 
made  that  one  of  his  chief  agencies,  publishing  constantly.  In 
1799  the  interdenominational  Religious  Tract  Society  was 
formed  in  London.  Even  earlier,  in  1789,  the  Methodist  Book 
Concern  had  been  founded  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  The 
New  York  Religious  Tract  Society,  which  was  to  be  merged  with 
other  local  organizations  into  the  American  Tract  Society,  was 
begun  in  1812.  Pietism  had  set  the  example  of  extensive  and 
cheap  publication  of  the  Bible  through  Baron  Canstein's  great 
foundation  in  Halle,  in  1710  (ante,  p.  500).  In  1804  the  Brit 
ish  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  was  founded  in  London  through 
the  efforts  of  Evangelicals.  Ireland  and  Scotland  soon  fol 
lowed;  in  1808  the  first  of  a  series  of  local  societies  was  or 
ganized  in  Philadelphia,  and  out  of  consolidation  the  American 
Bible  Society  came  into  existence  in  1816.  By  their  work  the 
present  enormous  diffusion  of  the  Scriptures  has  been  made 
possible. 

Some  form  of  religious  teaching  of  children  is  probably  as  old 
as  organized  religion,  and  the  Reformation  age  made  much  of 
catechetical  instruction.  Though  attempts  were  made  even  ear 
lier,  the  first  systematic  and  successful  efforts  to  reach  the  poor 
and  unschooled  with  a  Christian  training  on  a  large  scale  were 
in  the  Sunday  schools,  founded  in  1780  by  Robert  Raikes 
(1735-1811),  an  Evangelical  layman  of  the  establishment,  of 
Gloucester.  In  the  absence  of  public  education,  he  sought  to 
give  the  ignorant  training  in  the  three  "R's,"  and  in  Christian 
fundamentals  by  means  of  paid  teachers,  on  the  only  day, 
Sunday,  when  the  children  were  free.  Attendance  at  church 


522  THE  SUNDAY  SCHOOL 

was  also  required.  Raikes  was  proprietor  of  the  Gloucester 
Journal,  which  published  accounts  of  these  activities.  The 
work  spread  with  great  rapidity.  Wesley  and  the  Non- 
Conformists  favored  them.  A  Society  for  Promoting  Sunday 
Schools  throughout  the  British  Dominions,  was  organized  in 
London  in  1785.  A  similar  society  was  formed  in  Philadelphia 
in  1791.  Though  the  growth  of  the  movement  was  as  rapid  as 
it  was  permanent,  it  was  not  without  clerical  opposition,  partly 
on  account  of  its  novelty  and  partly  as  a  desecration  of  Sunday. 
The  secular  instruction  rapidly  decreased,  and  the  paid  teacher 
gave  place  to  the  voluntary  leader.  No  Christian  agency  has 
become  more  fully  part  of  normal  modern  church  life. 

SECTION    IX.      THE   MISSIONARY  AWAKENING 

The  development  of  Roman  Catholic  missions  in  the  Reforma 
tion  age  was  rapid  and  fruitful  (pp.  429,  430,  565).  Lack  of 
geographical  contact  with  heathen  lands  and  internal  problems 
prevented  any  equivalent  Protestant  efforts.  With  Dutch 
conquests  work  was  begun  in  Ceylon,  Java,  and  Formosa  in 
the  seventeenth  century.  The  first  English  foreign  missionary 
organization,  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel 
in  New  England,  came  into  existence  by  act  of  Parliament 
in  1649,  in  response  to  the  efforts  among  the  Massachusetts 
Indians  of  John  Eliot  (1604-1690).  At  its  expense  his  Indian 
Bible  and  other  works,  were  printed.  The  Society  for  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts  was  organized 
in  1701  (ante,  p.  508).  German  Pietism  produced  the  Halle- 
Danish  missions  from  1705  onward  (ante,  p.  500).  In  1732  the 
notable  missionary  career  of  the  Moravians  began  (ante,  p. 
504).  Quakers  had  made  some  missionary  efforts. 

Interest  in  non-Christian  peoples  was  aroused  in  Great 
Britain  by  the  voyages  of  discovery  in  the  Pacific,  under 
government  auspices,  conducted  by  Captain  James  Cook  (1728- 
1779),  from  1768  to  his  death.  These  discoveries  awakened  the 
missionary  zeal  of  William  Carey  (1761-1834),  a  shoemaker, 
then  a  Baptist  preacher,  and  who  was  to  show  himself  a  man  of 
remarkable  talents  as  a  linguist  and  a  botanist,  as  well  as  of 
unquenchable  missionary  devotion.  The  result  of  his  thought 
was  his  Enquiry  into  the  Obligation  of  Christians  to  use  Means 
for  the  Conversion  of  the  Heathens  of  1792.  In  October  of  that 


THE  MISSIONARY  AWAKENING  523 

year  this  book  and  Carey's  sermon  on  Isaiah  542>  3  induced 
the  organization  of  the  Baptist  Society  for  Propagating  the 
Gospel  among  the  Heathen.  Carey  was  its  first  missionary, 
and  his  letters  from  India  proved  a  powerful  stimulus  to  other 
missionary  endeavor.  In  1795  the  London  Missionary  Society 
was  formed,  as  an  interdenominational  enterprise,  largely 
through  the  efforts  of  David  Bogue  (1750-1825),  a  Congrega 
tional  minister  of  Gosport,  and  of  Thomas  Haweis  (1734-1820), 
the  Evangelical  rector  of  Aldwinkle.  Its  first  missionaries  were 
sent  in  1796  to  Tahiti.  It  has  long  been  Congregational. 
The  growing  sense  of  missionary  obligation  led  in  1799  to  the 
organization  of  the  Church  Missionary  Society,  representative 
of  the  Evangelical  wing  of  the  establishment,  through  the 
agency  of  John  Venn  (1759-1813),  rector  of  Clapham,  and 
Thomas  Scott,  editor  of  the  Family  Bible. 

This  deepening  of  English  missionary  obligation  roused  in 
terest  widely  in  other  lands.  In  the  United  States  news  of 
these  efforts  aroused  the  zeal  of  a  group  of  students  in  Williams 
College,  among  whom  Samuel  J.  Mills,  Jr.  (1783-1818),  was 
leader,  and  resulted  in  the  formation  in  1810  of  the  American 
Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions — originally  in 
terdenominational,  but  long  since  essentially  Congregational. 
Its  first  missionaries  were  sent  to  India  in  1812.  In  1814  the 
American  Baptist  Missionary  Union  came  into  being.  The 
Wesleyan  Methodist  Missionary  Society  of  England  was  founded 
in  1813,  and  its  American  Methodist  counterpart  in  1819. 
The  Dutch  Reformed  and  Presbyterian  Churches  of  the  United 
States,  which  had  co-operated  with  the  American  Board, 
formed  their  own  organizations  in  1835  and  1837.  After  small 
local  beginnings  in  Scotland,  as  early  as  1796,  the  Church  of 
Scotland  Mission  Boards  came  into  being  in  1825. 

On  the  Continent  the  Basel  Evangelical  Missionary  Society 
dates  from  1815 ;  the  Danish  Missionary  Society  from  1821 ;  the 
Berlin  Society  from  1824 ;  and  that  of  Paris  from  the  same  year. 

The  nineteenth  century  witnessed  a  constant  extension  of 
missionary  activities,  Protestant  and  Catholic,  a  more  per 
vading  sense  of  missionary  obligation,  and  a  constant  increase 
in  the  number  of  those  men  and  women  who  thus  consecrate 
themselves  to  the  spread  of  the  Gospel.  No  greater  change 
has  taken  place  in  the  religious  life  of  the  last  century  and  a 
half  than  the  general  diffusion  of  the  spirit  of  missions. 


524  THE   "ENLIGHTENMENT" 

SECTION  X.   THE  GERMAN  ENLIGHTENMENT  (AUFKLARUNG) 

England  had  well  advanced  in  its  Deistic,  rationalistic,  and 
Unitarian  development  before  the  rise  of  Methodism.  There 
the  two  streams  long  ran  parallel.  If  Methodism,  theologically, 
was  a  return  to  older  doctrinal  conceptions,  it  was  even  more 
an  appeal  to  the  strong,  deep  religious  feelings  of  the  nation. 
In  Germany  Pietism,  with  its  emphasis  on  feeling,  preceded 
the  Enlightenment  (Aufklarung),  though  continuing  to  run 
parallel  to  the  latter  movement  when  that  developed.  The 
Enlightenment  in  Germany  was  sure  to  come.  Pietism  had 
broken  the  grasp  of  confessional  orthodoxy,  but  it  had  raised 
up  no  theological  leaders  to  take  the  intellectual  place  of  the 
older  dogmatic  theologians.  The  eighteenth  century,  with 
its  critical  rationalistic  spirit ;  the  works  of  the  English  Deists 
and  their  opponents;  and  the  radical  popular  modification  of 
Deism  in  France,  necessarily  invaded  Germany  and  found  the 
intellectual  field  vacant,  through  the  discrediting  of  confessional 
orthodoxy  and  the  constructive  inefficiency  of  Pietism.  The 
result  was  the  rapid  growth  of  the  Enlightenment,  as  it  styled 
itself.  To  call  it  rationalism  is  not  quite  just,  though  that  it 
largely  became.  It  represented  many  shades.  Its  chief  im 
portance  is  that,  more  than  in  England  or  in  France,  by  its 
critical  and  constructive  work  it  prepared  the  way  for  a  great 
reconstruction  in  theology,  which,  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
was  to  spread  widely  throughout  Protestant  lands. 

Leibnitz's  speculations  (ante,  p.  485)  were  too  deep  to  pro 
duce  a  profound  impression  on  his  own  age,  though  later  they 
were  of  powerful  effect.  Thomasius  (ante,  p.  499)  spread  a 
rationalistic  spirit,  without  working  out  a  system.  His  influ 
ence  was  marked  in  developing  an  attitude  of  mind,  so  that  he 
has  not  untruly  been  described  as  the  "road-breaker  of  the 
Enlightenment."  Its  great  protagonist,  however,  was  Chris 
tian  Wolff  (1679-1754).  Not  a  creative  genius,  it  was  Wolff's 
fortune  so  to  embody  and  give  expression  to  the  unformed  and 
inarticulate  thought  of  his  age,  as  to  become  the  philosophical 
and  theological  leader  of  two  generations  of  his  countrymen. 
Skilled  in  mathematics,  like  most  of  the  philosophers  of  his  and 
the  preceding  century,  he  began  lecturing  on  mathematics  in 
Halle  in  1707.  Here  his  philosophy  rapidly  developed,  in  close 
connection  with  that  of  Leibnitz,  whose  deeper  thoughts,  how- 


CHRISTIAN  WOLFF  525 

ever,  he  never  grasped.  That  alone  is  true,  Wolff  held,  which 
can  be  demonstrated  by  logical  certainty  akin  to  mathematics. 
Truth  must  thus  rationally  be  deduced  from  the  innate  contents 
of  the  mind — the  "pure  reason."  All  that  comes  by  experience 
is  merely  contingent  and  confirmatory.  The  world  is  composed 
of  an  infinite  multitude  of  simple  substances,  each  endowed 
with  force,  though  not  with  all  the  qualities  of  Leibnitz's 
monads  (ante,  p.  485).  Bodies  are  aggregations  of  these  sub 
stances.  The  world  is  a  huge  machine,  ruled  by  mechanical 
laws.  The  soul  is  that  in  us  which  is  conscious  of  itself  and  of 
other  objects.  It  is  endowed  with  capacities  of  knowledge  and 
desire.  Their  completeness  of  fulfilment  is  pleasure,  their  in 
completeness,  pain. 

Since  the  world  is  contingent,  it  must  have  a  cause.  Hence 
God  exists  and  has  made  the  world.  The  laws  of  all  rational 
thinking  and  acting  give  us  the  divine  attributes.  Since  com 
pleteness  is  the  highest  aim  of  all  being,  all  that  aims  at  the 
completeness  of  ourselves  and  other  men  must  be  virtue. 
Hence  the  principles  of  right  action  are  embodied,  as  with  the 
Deists,  in  the  fundamental  divinely  appointed  constitution  of 
man.  Wolff  did  not  deny  that  there  might  be  revelation, 
though,  if  so,  it  could  contain  nothing  not  in  agreement  with 
reason ;  nor  are  miracles  impossible,  though  improbable,  and 
each  would  imply  two  acts  of  equal  power,  the  interruption  of 
the  order  of  nature  and  its  restoration  after  the  event.  Wolff's 
view  of  man  was  optimistic.  He  is  going  on  individually,  and 
socially,  to  larger  completeness.  Here  was  a  breach  with  the 
older  theology,  both  of  orthodoxy  and  of  Pietism,  and  one  that 
came  to  its  age  with  the  conclusiveness  of  a  logical  demonstra 
tion.  God,  natural  religion,  originally  implanted  morality, 
and  progress  toward  individual  and  racial  perfection,  not  super 
natural  revelation  or  supernatural  rescue  from  sin  and  ruin, 
are  the  proper  objects  of  religious  regard,  even  if  Wolff  allows 
a  little  standing  room  to  revelation  and  miracle.  Nor  is  man 
the  hopeless  or  incapable  being  of  the  older  theology. 

Wolff's  views  aroused  the  hostility  of  his  Pietistic  colleagues 
in  Halle.  They  procured  from  King  Frederick  William  I 
(1713-1740)  his  removal.  The  royal  sentence  was  even  to 
them  surprisingly  strenuous.  Wolff  was  ordered,  in  1723,  to 
leave  the  university  within  forty-eight  hours,  or  be  hanged. 
He  found  a  refuge  in  Marburg,  and  was  honorably  restored  to 


526  MOSHEIM.    REIMARUS 

Halle  in  1740  by  Frederick  the  Great.  His  work  had,  how 
ever,  become  common  property,  and  he  added  little  to  his 
achievements  during  the  fourteen  years  in  Halle  till  his  death. 
His  thought  had  become  that  of  a  large  section  of  Germany. 
The  sway  of  Pietism  in  Halle  was  over. 

Less  radical,  but  influential  in  aiding  the  new  attitude  of 
German  thought,  was  Johann  Lorentz  von  Mosheim  (1694?- 
1755),  professor  in  Helmstadt  and  finally  in  Gottingen.  The 
most  admired  preacher  of  his  time,  master  of  a  style  of  brilliancy 
in  Latin  or  in  German,  his  influence  was  essentially  latitudi- 
narian.  He  had  no  sympathy  with  the  dogmatism  of  the  or 
thodox.  The  emphases  of  the  Pietists  awakened  no  response 
in  him ;  nor  could  he  support  the  extreme  rationalism  of  Wolff. 
He  touched  most  fields  of  religious  thought,  and  his  influence, 
on  the  whole,  favored  the  spread  of  the  Enlightenment.  His 
chief  service  was  in  the  field  of  history.  His  Institutiones,  first 
issued  in  1726  and  in  final  form  in  1755,  embraced  the  whole 
story  of  the  church.  In  his  Commentarii  de  rebus  Christianorum 
ante  Constantinum  of  1753,  he  treated  the  earlier  centuries  in 
ampler  fashion.  Mosheim  well  deserves  the  name  of  "the 
father  of  modern  church  history."  He  desired  to  be  free  of  all 
partisan  bias,  and  succeeded  in  remarkable  measure  at  the 
expense  of  some  colorlessness.  His  is  the  first  church  history 
which  aimed  to  tell  events  exactly  as  they  happened,  without 
a  cause  to  defend.  As  such,  and  by  reason  of  its  learning 
and  style,  his  work  long  survived  his  death. 

More  extreme  rationalism  soon  found  its  representatives  in 
Germany.  Hermann  Samuel  lleimarus  (1694-1768),  long  a 
highly  reputed  professor  of  Oriental  languages  in  Hamburg,  and 
the  leader  in  scholarly  circles  there,  had  travelled  in  England 
in  early  life,  and  had  there  adopted  Deist  views,  in  defense  of 
which  he  wrote  much,  though  his  works  were  not  issued  till 
after  his  death,  when  they  were  put  forth  by  Lessing  between 
1774  and  1778  as  fragments  found  in  the  library  of  Wolfen- 
biittel — hence  Wolfenbuttel  Fragments,  the  publication  of  which 
aroused  immense  discussion.  As  with  the  Deists,  all  that  is 
true  is  that  natural  religion  which  teaches  the  existence  of  a 
wise  Creator,  a  primitive  morality,  and  immortality — all  ascer- 
tainable  by  reason.  The  world  itself  is  the  only  miracle  and 
the  only  revelation — all  others  are  impossible.  The  writers  of 
the  Bible  were  not  even  honest  men,  but  were  moved  by  fraud 


LESSING  527 

and  selfishness.  It  is  a  curious  commentary  on  the  condition 
of  thought  in  Germany  that  Reimarus's  writings,  though  widely 
criticised,  were  no  less  valued  by  others  as  a  defense  of  religion 
against  materialism  and  atheism. 

Gotthold  Ephraim  Lessing  (1729-1781),  to  whom  the  publi 
cation  of  Reimarus's  religious  writings  was  due,  eminent  as  a 
dramatist  and  a  literary  and  artistic  critic,  himself  ranking  as 
a  German  classic  writer  with  Goethe  and  Schiller,  though  not 
agreeing  wholly  with  Reimarus,  presented  in  his  Education  of 
the  Human  Race  of  1780  a  theory  of  much  plausibility.  As  the 
individual  passes  through  the  successive  stages  of  childhood, 
youth,  and  manhood,  so  does  the  race.  The  Scriptures  have 
been  given  by  God  to  meet  these  needs.  Childhood  is  moved 
by  immediate  rewards  and  punishments.  For  men  in  that 
condition  the  Old  Testament  is  a  divine  book  of  training,  with 
its  promises  of  long  life  and  temporal  blessings  for  obedience. 
Youth  is  ready  to  sacrifice  present  ease  and  lesser  goods  for 
future  success  and  happiness.  For  it,  or  for  men  in  that  state, 
the  New  Testament  with  its  present  self-surrender  and  eternal 
rewards  is  a  fitting  guide.  But  manhood  is  ruled  by  duty, 
without  hope  of  reward  or  fear  of  punishment  as  its  motives. 
Its  guide  is  reason,  though  perhaps  God  may  yet  send  some 
further  revelation  as  its  aid.  Lessing' s  work  spread  wide  the 
feeling  in  educated  Germany  that  the  historic  Christian  re 
ligion  belonged  to  a  past  or  to  an  inferior  present  stage  of 
human  development. 

The  effect  of  the  Enlightenment  was  a  wide  diffusion  of  the 
views  that  what  alone  were  valuable  in  the  Scriptures  were  the 
truths  of  natural  religion  and  its  morality,  divested  of  miracle 
or  the  supernatural.  Jesus  was  a  moral  teacher  rather  than  a 
personal  centre  of  faith.  This  was  rationalism,  and  was  char 
acteristic  of  much  of  the  strongest  theological  thinking  of  Ger 
many  by  1800,  and  was  to  continue  powerful  in  the  nineteenth 
century.  Side  by  side  with  it,  confessional  orthodoxy  and 
Pietism  continued,  though  with  decreasing  intellectual  appeal, 
and  much,  also,  which  may  be  called  semi-rationalism.  Yet 
the  age  was  characterized,  also,  by  vigorous  polemic  against 
superstitions,  and  a  large  development  of  voluntary  and 
popular  beneficence,  and  provision  for  popular  education. 

The  eighteenth  century  was  also  marked,  and  nowhere  more 
than  in  Germany,  by  the  development  of  textual  and  historical 


528  BIBLICAL  SCHOLARSHIP 

studies  of  the  Bible  which  initiated  the  modern  period  of  criti 
cism.  The  English  scholar,  John  Mill  (1645-1707),  published 
a  Greek  Testament,  based  on  a  careful  collation  of  manu 
scripts,  in  the  year  of  his  death.  Jean  le  Clerc  (1657-1736), 
brought  up  in  Geneva,  later  an  Arminian  in  Amsterdam  from 
1684  to  his  death,  won  fame  as  an  exegete,  through  his  attempts 
to  explain  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  without  dogmatic 
prepossessions — approaching  them  not  to  discover  proof  texts, 
but  their  actual  meaning.  Johann  Albrecht  Bengel  (1687- 
1752),  long  head  of  the  theological  seminary  in  Denkendorf, 
in  Wiirttemberg,  a  man  of  Pietistic  leanings,  was  the  first  to 
recognize  that  New  Testament  manuscripts  may  be  grouped 
in  families,  and  to  establish  the  generally  accepted  critical 
canon  that  a  more  difficult  reading  is  to  be  preferred.  His 
Gnomon,  or  Index,  of  the  New  Testament,  of  1742,  was  the  most 
remarkable  commentary  thus  far  produced.  Nothing,  he  de 
clared,  should  be  read  into  the  Scripture,  and  nothing  there 
contained  omitted,  which  could  be  drawn  out  by  the  most 
rigid  application  of  grammatical  principles.  Wesley  made  it 
the  basis  of  his  Notes  upon  the  New  Testament  of  1755.  Con 
temporaneously  Johann  Jakob  Wettstein  (1693-1754),  of  Basel 
and  Amsterdam,  spent  nearly  a  lifetime  of  labor  on  his  Greek 
New  Testament  with  Various  Reading,  published  in  1751-1752. 
Textual  criticism  and  sound  exegesis  were  thus  given  a  great 
advance. 

To  Jean  Astruc  (1684-1766),  royal  professor  of  medicine  in 
Paris,  was  due  the  announcement,  in  his  Conjectures  of  1753, 
of  the  composite  character  of  Genesis.  The  theory  won  essen 
tial  support  in  1781  from  Johann  Gottfried  Eichhorn  (1752- 
1827),  later  the  rationalistic  professor  in  Gottingen,  often  called 
"the  founder  of  Old  Testament  criticism,"  but  it  is  only  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  that  Astruc' s  discovery 
won  extensive  recognition. 

In  Johann  August  Ernest!  (1707-1781),  professor  in  Leipzig 
from  1742,  Germany  had  a  teacher  who  not  only  aided  greatly 
that  awakening  of  classical  thought  and  ideals  which  affected 
German  intellectual  life  in  the  closing  years  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  but  one  who  carried  to  New  Testament  interpretation 
the  same  principles  which  he  applied  to  classical  literature. 
The  meaning  is  to  be  ascertained  by  the  same  grammatical  and 
historical  methods  in  the  one  field  as  in  the  other.  Reimarus 


REIMARUS  AND  SEMLER  529 

(ante,  p.  526),  in  his  seventh  Fragment,  published  by  Lessing 
in  1778,  for  the  first  time  subjected  the  life  of  Christ  to  rigid 
historic  methods,  like  those  applied  to  secular  history.  His 
total  rejection  of  the  supernatural,  the  mythical,  or  the  legen 
dary  left  his  results  barren  enough,  but  he  raised  questions  of 
method  and  conclusion  which  have  constituted  the  problems 
of  this  investigation,  in  large  measure,  ever  since.  Johann 
Salomo  Semler  (1725-1791),  professor  in  Halle  from  1752,  was 
of  Pietistic  training,  though  in  manhood  a  conservative  ration 
alist.  His  importance  was  in  the  paths  he  indicated  rather 
than  in  the  results  he  achieved.  He  distinguished  between 
the  permanent  truths  in  Scripture  and  the  elements  due  to  the 
times  in  which  the  several  books  were  written.  He  denied  the 
equal  value  of  all  parts  of  Scripture.  Revelation,  he  taught,  is 
in  Scripture,  but  all  Scripture  is  not  revelation.  The  creeds 
of  the  church  are  a  growth.  Church  history  is  a  development. 
In  particular  he  made  a  distinction  between  Petrine,  Judaizing 
parties,  in  the  early  church,  and  Pauline,  anti-Judaic,  that  was 
to  play  a  great  role  in  later  discussions. 

SECTION  XI.      EOMANTICISM 

Nothing  seemed  more  characteristic  of  the  earlier  half  of 
the  eighteenth  century  than  the  dominance  of  "reason,"  or 
common  sense.  The  age  was  unemotional,  intellectual.  It 
did  a  remarkable  work  in  questioning  that  which  had  been  ac 
cepted  on  tradition,  in  sweeping  away  ancient  superstitions 
and  abuses,  and  demanding  the  rightfulness  of  that  which 
claimed  authority.  But  it  was  cold  and  one-sided.  It  was 
met,  as  the  eighteenth  century  went  on,  by  an  immense  opposi 
tion.  The  claims  of  feeling  asserted  themselves,  voiced  in  a 
"return  to  nature,"  that  was  too  often  a  nature  conjured  up 
by  the  imagination,  but  accompanied  by  a  renewed  appreciation 
of  the  classical  and  the  mediaeval,  and  the  revival  of  a  sense 
of  the  supernatural  in  religion,  often  vague  and  obscure,  but 
creating  a  totally  different  atmosphere  in  which  man's  claims 
as  a  feeling,  rather  than  as  a  purely  thinking,  being  were 
asserted. 

Its  most  effective  apostle  was  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau  (1712- 
1778) ;  but  the  movement  was  manifested  throughout  Europe. 
Nowhere  was  it  more  evident  than  in  Germany.  Lessing  shared 


530  IMMANUEL  KANT 

it.  Its  most  conspicuous  literary  representatives  there  were 
Johann  Wolfgang  ;von  Goethe  (1749-1832)  and  Johann  Chris- 
toph  Friedrich  von  Schiller  (1759-1805).  The  older  ration 
alism  was  not,  indeed,  swept  from  the  field,  but  a  totally  differ 
ent  habit  of  thought  contended  on  more  than  equal  terms  for 
the  mastery — that  of  Romanticism. 

Philosophy,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  had  seemed  to  lead 
to  no  thoroughfare.  Leibnitz  had  taught  that  all  knowledge 
was  an  elucidation  of  that  which  was  wrapped  up  innate  in 
the  monad.  Wolff  had  affirmed  the  power  of  "pure  reason" 
to  give  the  only  certainties.  On  the  other  hand,  Locke  had 
taught  that  all  comes  by  experience,  and  though  Hume  had 
pushed  to  scepticism  all  conclusion  based  on  cause  and  sub 
stance,  he  had  viewed,  like  Locke,  all  knowledge  as  founded  on 
experience.  The  British  and  the  German  tendencies  were  ap 
parently  mutually  destructive.  It  was  to  be  the  work  of  Kant 
to  combine  and  supersede  both,  on  a  new  basis  which  should  be 
the  starting-point  of  modern  philosophy,  and  to  give  a  value 
to  feeling  which  neither  earlier  parties  had  recognized. 

Immanuel  Kant  (1724-1804)  was  a  native  of  Konigsberg, 
where»all  his  life  was  spent.  His  paternal  ancestry,  he  believed, 
was  Scotch.  His  earliest  influences  were  Pietist.  In  1755 
Kant  became  a  teacher  in  the  University  of  Konigsberg.  His 
development  was  slow.  He  held  at  first  to  the  school  of  Leib 
nitz-Wolff.  Study  of  Hume  awakened  doubts  as  to  its  ade 
quacy,  though  he  did  not  become  Hume's  disciple.  Rousseau 
profoundly  influenced  him  with  the  "discovery  of  the  deep 
hidden  nature  of  man."  In  1781  came  Kant's  epoch-making 
work,  the  Critique  of  Pure  Reason — a  blow  struck  primarily 
at  the  then  dominant  philosophy  of  Wolff.  His  formative 
treatises  rapidly  followed,  and  his  thought  was  soon  powerful 
in  Germany.  By  1797  his  mental  and  physical  powers  had 
begun  a  decline  which  was  to  end  in  pitiful  ruin.  A  little  man 
in  physical  stature,  never  married,  of  strict  moral  uprightness, 
he  devoted  himself  to  his  task  with  singular  simplicity  and 
fidelity. 

Kant's  system  is  in  many  respects  a  theory  of  knowledge. 
With  the  school  of  Locke  and  Hume  he  held  that  in  our  knowl 
edge  something,  or  some  stimulus — the  content — comes  to  the 
mind  from  without.  With  Leibnitz  and  Wolff  he  maintained 
that  the  mind  has  certain  innate  qualities,  transcendent  in  the 


IMMANUEL  KANT  531 

sense  that  they  do  not  come  by  experience,  which  condition 
and  give  form  to  that  which  comes  from  without.  Time  and 
space  are  subjective  conditions  under  which  perception  is  pos 
sible.  The  mind  classifies  what  comes  to  it  from  without 
under  its  own  laws.  These  are  the  categories.  Knowledge  is, 
therefore,  the  product  of  two  elements — a  content  from  without, 
to  which  form  is  given  by  the  laws  of  the  mind.  These  two  ele 
ments  give  us  experience ;  but  they  do  not  give  us  knowledge 
of  what  things  are  in  themselves,  only  of  what  our  minds  make 
of  what  has  come  into  them  from  without.  Such  a  demonstra 
tion  from  "pure  reason,"  as  Wolff  had  attempted  of  God, 
natural  religion,  and  the  constitution  of  the  universe,  is  intellec 
tually  impossible.  We  cannot  thus  demonstrate  the  nature  of 
these  existences  as  they  are  in  themselves.  Nature  may  be 
studied  as  the  realm  of  exact  law,  but  the  law  is  simply  that 
of  our  own  thinking. 

While  absolute  knowledge  of  that  beyond  experience  is, 
therefore,  unattainable  by  purely  intellectual  processes,  man 
is  conscious  of  a  feeling  of  moral  obligation  when  he  asks  what 
ought  he  to  do  ?  This  subject  was  developed  in  Kant's  Critique 
of  the  Practical  Reason  of  1788.  When  man  answers  the  ques 
tion  as  to  conduct,  he  feels  within  the  "categorical  imperative" 
— an  imperative  because  a  command ;  and  categorical  because 
without  conditions.  It  is  so  to  act  that  the  principles  of  action 
may  become  those  of  universal  law — in  a  phrase,  do  your  duty. 
That  moral  law  within  is  the  noblest  of  man's  possessions, 
it  shows  him  as  a  personality  and  not  as  a  machine.  With 
this  "categorical  imperative"  three  postulates,  or  inseparable 
thoughts,  are  united.  The  most  evident  is,  that  if  man  ought  to 
do  his  duty,  he  can.  Hence  man  must  have  freedom.  And 
freedom  gives  us  a  glimpse  of  a  supersensuous  realm  of  moral 
purpose — of  a  sphere  of  moral  order.  A  second  postulate  is  that 
of  immortality.  If  life  should  be  subjected  to  the  categorical 
imperative  it  must  last  long  enough  for  that  result  to  be  accom 
plished.  Closely  connected  is  the  third  postulate.  Virtue 
should  result  in  happiness.  Experience  does  not  give  that 
union.  Hence  its  accomplishment  demands  a  power  that  can 
unite  the  two.  The  third  postulate  is,  therefore,  God.  His 
existence  is  in  the  "pure  reason"  only  a  hypothesis ;  but  in  the 
postulates  of  the  practical  reason  it  becomes  a  conviction. 

Kant's  religious  ideas  were  set  forth  in  his  Religion  Within  the 


532  HERDER.    SCHLEIERMACHER 

Bounds  of  Reason  Only  of  1793.  Emphasizing  morality  as 
the  prime  content  of  the  practical  reason,  he  reduces  religion 
practically  to  theistic  ethics.  Evil  and  the  categorical  impera 
tive  contest  for  the  obedience  of  man.  One  ruled  by  this  prin 
ciple  of  moral  good — the  categorical  imperative — is  pleasing 
to  God,  is  a  son  of  God.  Of  this  sonship  Christ  is  the  highest 
illustration.  The  invisible  church  is  the  ideal  union  of  all  those 
obedient  to  moral  law.  The  visible  church  is  a  union  to  develop 
this  obedience.  Its  complete  achievement  will  be  the  kingdom 
of  God.  Kant's  contribution  to  Christian  theology  was  not 
his  rationalizing  interpretation  of  doctrines,  but  his  vindica 
tion  of  man's  profoundest  feelings  as  bases  of  practical  religious 
conviction  and  moral  conduct. 

A  decided  impulse  to  the  historical  interpretation  of  the  Bible 
was  given  by  Johann  Gottfried  von  Herder  (1744-1803),  in 
early  life  an  intimate  with  Goethe,  influenced  by  personal  con 
tact  with  Kant,  and  an  eager  supporter  of  the  romantic  move 
ment.  From  1776  to  his  death  he  was  court  preacher  in  Wei 
mar.  His  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry  appeared  in  1782-1783. 
His  Philosophy  of  the  History  of  Mankind  in  1784-1791.  Re 
ligion,  especially  Christianity,  is  the  embodiment  of  that  which 
is  deepest  in  the  feelings  of  mankind.  The  Scriptures  are  to  be 
understood  in  the  light  of  the  views  and  feelings  of  the  times 
in  which  the  several  books  were  written.  They  are,  therefore, 
essentially  a  religious  literature.  What  is  true  and  permanent 
in  them  must  be  distinguished  from  the  temporary  and  local. 

Out  of  this  romantic  movement  came  the  most  influential 
German  theologian  of  the  opening  nineteenth  century,  and  one 
whose  work  has  moulded  religious  thought  far  outside  the  bor 
ders  of  his  native  land — Friedrich  Daniel  Ernst  Schleiermacher 
(1768-1834).  The  son  of  a  Prussian  army  chaplain,  he  was 
educated  by  the  Moravians,  fell  under  the  influence  of  the  views 
of  Wolff  and  Semler,  and  was  then  greatly  impressed  by  Plato, 
Spinoza,  Kant,  and  Romanticism.  In  1796  he  became  hospital 
chaplain  in  Berlin,  then  a  centre  of  the  Enlightenment,  and 
there  published  in  1799  his  remarkable  Addresses  on  Religion, 
directed  to  a  rationalistic  circle.  In  these  his  fundamental 
thoughts  were  set  forth.  From  1804  to  1807  he  was  professor 
in  Halle.  In  the  year  last  named  he  settled  once  more  in  Ber 
lin,  becoming  a  little  later  pastor  of  the  Trinity  Church.  In 
1810,  on  the  founding  of  the  University  of  Berlin,  he  was  ap- 


SCHLEIERMACHER  533 

pointed  professor  of  theology,  a  post  which  he  occupied  till  his 
death  in  1834.  In  1821-1822  he  set  forth  his  mature  views  in 
his  Christian  Belief  According  to  the  Principles  of  the  Evangelical 
Church. 

Schleiermacher 's  prime  significance  is  that  he  took  up  into 
his  own  system  the  results  of  previous  tendencies,  and  gave  to 
theology  a  new  basis,  and  to  the  person  of  Christ  a  meaning 
largely  ignored  in  his  age.  Orthodoxy  and  rationalism  had 
both  made  religion  essentially  acceptance  of  an  intellectual 
system  and  an  externally  authoritative  rule  of  conduct.  To 
the  orthodox  religion  was  based  on  assent  to  the  truths  of  revela 
tion  and  obedience  to  the  will  of  God.  To  the  rationalists  it  was 
acceptance  of  natural  theology  and  of  universal  morality  as 
certained  by  the  reason.  Both  parties  in  the  eighteenth  cen 
tury  looked  upon  religion  and  morality  as  primarily  means  for 
securing  a  happy  immortality.  To  Schleiermacher  the  sole 
basis  of  religion  is  inward,  in  the  feeling.  In  itself  religion  is 
neither  a  body  of  doctrines,  revealed  or  rationally  certified, 
nor  a  system  of  conduct,  though  both  belief  and  conduct  flow 
from  religion. 

Schleiermacher  took  much  from  Spinoza,  Leibnitz,  and  Kant. 
In  our  experience  we  perceive  the  antithesis  of  the  manifold  and 
changing  over  against  a  principle  of  unity  and  permanency. 
These  antitheses  give  us  the  Absolute  and  eternal — God — with 
out  whom  all  would  be  chaos ;  and  the  world,  without  which  all 
would  be  empty.  The  Absolute  is  throughout  all.  God  is  there 
fore  immanent  in  His  world.  Man  is,  in  himself,  as  with  Leib 
nitz,  a  microcosm,  a  reflection  of  the  universe.  As  contrasted 
with  that  which  is  universal,  absolute,  and  eternal,  he  feels  him 
self  finite,  limited,  temporary — in  a  word,  dependent.  This 
feeling  of  dependence  is  the  basis  of  all  religion.  To  bridge  over 
the  gulf  between  the  universal  and  the  finite,  to  bring  man  into 
harmony  with  God,  is  the  aim  of  all  religions.  Hence  the  worth 
of  each  religion  is  to  be  measured  by  the  degree  in  which  this 
result,  which  is  the  aim  of  all,  is  accomplished.  Hence  religions 
are  not  to  be  divided  into  true  and  false,  but  into  relative  de 
grees  of  adequacy.  All  advances  in  religion  throughout  his 
tory  are  in  a  true  sense  revelations,  a  fuller  manifestation  to 
human  consciousness  of  the  immanent  God.  Of  all  religions 
thus  far  known  to  men,  Christianity  is  the  best,  since  it  most 
fully  accomplishes  what  it  is  the  aim  of  all  religions  to  achieve. 


534  SCHLEIERMACHER.    HEGEL 

Its  problems  are  those  most  fundamental  to  all  religion,  sin 
and  pardon,  separation  and  reconciliation.  And  in  the  Chris 
tian  religion  the  person  of  Christ  is  the  central  element.  He  is 
Himself  the  reconciliation  of  the  finite  with  the  universal,  the 
temporal  with  the  eternal,  the  union  of  God  and  man.  He  is, 
therefore,  the  Mediator  of  this  reconciliation  to  others.  Hence 
Schleiermacher  was  strongly  Christocentric.  The  life  thus 
uniting  the  temporal  and  the  eternal — man  and  God — is  now 
immortal.  An  immortality  in  duration  is  a  great  hope,  but 
true  immortality  is  a  quality  of  life  rather  than  a  mere  question 
of  duration. 

Doctrines  are  these  fundamental  religious  experiences  defin 
ing  and  interpreting  themselves  intellectually;  but  these  ex 
planations  have  only  a  relative  and  secondary  value.  They  have 
changed  and  may  change.  They  are  simply  the  forms  in  which 
abiding  truth  from  time  to  time  expresses  itself. 

In  Schleiermacher's  view,  morality  is  the  result  of  the  proper 
understanding  of  that  of  which  man  is  a  part,  the  family,  the 
community,  the  state,  the  world.  Such  an  enlarging  view  of 
his  real  place  in  these  relations  will  drive  out  selfishness  and 
self-centring.  Morality  is  not  religion,  nor  religion  morality; 
but  religion  is  the  main  aid  to  morality.  It  asks  the  question 
insistently,  what  ought  to  be,  in  the  light  of  the  Christian 
consciousness. 

Schleiermacher  was  condemned  by  the  orthodox  of  his  day 
as  too  radical,  by  the  rationalists  as  too  visionary ;  but  no  one 
has  influenced  modern  religious  thinking  in  Protestant  circles 
more,  or  more  variously. 

Kant's  system  contained  two  evident  points  of  difficulty. 
It  denied  the  power  of  intellectual  processes  to  give  knowledge 
of  things  as  they  are  in  themselves,  and  it  did  not  explain  how 
mental  processes  are  necessarily  the  same  in  all  individuals. 
Philosophy  was  developed  in  the  clarification  of  both  these 
difficulties,  under  the  influence  of  Romanticism,  into  idealism, 
by  Johann  Gottlieb  Fichte  (1762-1814)  and  Friedrich  Wil- 
helm  Joseph  von  Schelling  (1775-1854) ;  but  in  more  consistent 
form  and  with  a  stricter  realism,  though  predominantly  ideal 
ist  ically,  by  Hegel. 

Georg  Wilhelm  Friedrich  Hegel  (1770-1831)  was  a  native  of 
Stuttgart,  educated  at  Tubingen.  He  taught  in  Jena,  with 
scanty  following,  from  1801  to  1807.  From  1808  to  1816  he 


HEGEL  535 

was  the  head  of  the  gymnasium  school  in  Nuremberg.  The 
year  1818  saw  his  appointment  to  a  professorship  in  Berlin, 
where  his  fame  rapidly  rose  to  that  of  the  first  philosopher  of 
his  day  in  Germany,  He  died  of  cholera,  at  the  height  of  his 
reputation  and  activity,  in  1831.  This  distinction  was  in  spite 
of  his  uninteresting  and  obscure  manner  of  presentation  in  the 
classroom. 

To  Hegel  the  universe  is  a  constant  development  of  the 
Absolute,  that  is,  God,  through  struggle  and  effort.  The  Abso 
lute  is  spirit,  and  its  development  is  in  accordance  with  the 
laws  by  which  mind  thinks  itself  out  logically.  These  always 
involve  three  stages,  a  movement  in  one  direction — a  thesis. 
This  proceeds  till  it  encounters  its  opposition  or  its  limitation 
—the  antithesis.  But  the  two  are  but  aspects  of  the  one  Abso 
lute,  and  both  thesis  and  antithesis  unite  in  a  higher  union,  the 
synthesis.  Over  against  the  "  idea,"  the  thesis,  as  its  antithesis, 
is  nature — but  the  two  unite  in  higher  synthesis  in  man,  who  is 
the  union  of  both  mind  and  matter.  Since  all  is  the  Absolute 
developing  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  all  thought,  the  laws 
of  thought  are  the  laws  of  things ;  and  since  our  thinking  is  a 
fragment  of  that  of  the  Absolute,  in  so  far  as  it  is  true,  it  gives 
us  true  knowledge  of  the  things  outside  our  minds,  and  is  the 
same  in  all  minds  since  a  part  of  the  one  Absolute.  Since  we 
are  portions  of  the  Absolute  come  to  consciousness,  a  prime  duty 
of  the  finite  spirit  is  to  realize  its  relation  to  the  Absolute- 
such  realization  is  religion.  Religion  may,  indeed,  begin,  as 
with  Schleiermacher,  in  feeling ;  but  to  be  true  it  must  become 
real  knowledge.  Every  religion  is  an  attempt  thus  to  know 
God,  of  which  Christianity  is  the  most  complete  realization. 
God  is  always  striving  to  reveal  Himself ;  yet  this  outworking 
must  always  be  through  the  three  necessary  stages  of  develop 
ment.  Thus  the  Father  is  the  divine  unity — the  thesis.  He 
objectifies  Himself  in  the  Son — the  antithesis.  The  uniting 
love  is  the  Holy  Spirit — the  synthesis.  The  whole  process  gives 
the  Trinity.  So  regarding  the  incarnation.  God  is  the  thesis. 
He  is  distinguished  from  finite  humanity,  the  antithesis.  Both 
unite  in  the  higher  synthesis,  the  God-man.  Hegel's  system 
did  much  to  substitute  for  the  older  sharp  distinction  between 
the  divine  and  the  human,  the  sense  of  their  fundamental 
unity  so  prevalent  in  modern  Protestant  theology. 

The   profundity,   power,   and   ingenuity   of   Hegel's   views 


536  THE  TUBINGEN  SCHOOL 

cannot  be  questioned.  Yet  they  were  too  procrusteanly  phil 
osophical  not  to  lead  to  reaction.  Though  their  reign  in  Ger 
many  was  comparatively  short,  they  had  much  following  in 
Great  Britain  throughout  the  latter  half  of  the  nineteenth  cen 
tury,  and  have  long  been  influential  in  America. 

SECTION  XII.      FURTHER  GERMAN  DEVELOPMENTS 

Hegel's  theory  of  development  had  a  significant  application 
to  New  Testament  criticism  in  the  work  of  Ferdinand  Christian 
Baur  (1792-1860),  professor  in  Tubingen  from  1826  to  his  death, 
and  founder  of  the  new  Tubingen  school  in  theology.  The 
essential  features  of  his  interpretation  were  sketched  by  Baur 
in  his  account  of  the  parties  in  the  Corinthian  Church,  published 
in  1831,  and  were  thenceforward  developed  in  a  series  of  bril 
liant  studies,  which  won  many  disciples.  All  historical  progress, 
Baur  felt,  with  Hegel,  must  be  through  the  three  stages  of  thesis, 
antithesis,  and  synthesis.  Semler  (ante,  p.  529)  had  already 
taught  the  existence  of  Petrine  (Judaizing)  and  Pauline  parties 
in  the  early  church.  These  gave  the  elements  of  the  Hegelian 
triad.  Christianity,  so  Baur  taught,  began  as  essentially  a 
Messianic  Judaism.  This — the  thesis — was  the  position  of  all 
the  original  Apostles.  The  necessary  antithesis  inevitably  arose 
and  was  Pauline  Christianity.  Petrine  and  Pauline  views 
struggled  far  into  the  second  century ;  but  the  inevitable  syn 
thesis  came  eventually,  in  the  Old  Catholic  Church,  which  hon 
ored  both  Peter  and  Paul,  and  was  unconscious  that  they  had 
ever  stood  in  serious  opposition. 

The  most  debated  use  made  by  Baur  of  this  reconstruction 
of  the  early  history  of  the  church  was  a  redating  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament.  They  must  display  the  biases  of  the 
various  aspects  of  this  development — that  is,  they  must  show 
"tendencies."  Applying  this  test,  Baur  found  only  Romans, 
Galatians,  and  the  Corinthian  epistles  genuinely  Pauline,  since 
they  alone  showed  traces  of  the  conflict.  The  others  did  not 
reveal  the  struggle,  and  hence  must  be  dated  later,  when  it 
had  become  a  forgotten  story.  Revelation  was  early  and  Juda 
izing.  In  1847  Baur  turned  to  the  investigation  of  the  Gospels 
by  the  same  methods.  Matthew  reveals  Judaizing  tendencies, 
and  is  the  oldest.  Luke  is  probably  a  reworking  of  Marcion's 
(ante,  p.  57)  gospel.  Mark  sought  to  hide  the  conflict,  and 


GERMAN  THEOLOGICAL  GROUPS  537 

is  later,  while  John  is  not  only  irenic  but  betrays  familiarity 
with  controversies  of  the  later  half  of  the  second  century. 
The  greater  part  of  the  New  Testament  was,  therefore,  written 
in  the  second  century. 

Baur's  discussion  aroused  advocates  and  opponents  in  great 
numbers.  Its  ultimate  effect  on  New  Testament  investigation 
was  most  beneficial.  These  debates  immensely  enlarged  the 
knowledge  of  the  early  church  and  of  its  literature.  Their  re 
sults  have  been,  however,  the  best  answer  to  Baur's  own  the 
ories.  He  had  no  adequate  conception  of  the  significance  of 
Christ  in  the  development  of  the  early  church.  There  were 
important  differences  between  Judaic  and  Pauline  Christianity ; 
but  to  reduce  the  intellectual  reactions  of  nascent  Christianity 
to  these  only  is  far  too  simple.  There  were  many  other  shades 
of  unlikeness.  Above  all,  an  increasing  knowledge  of  the  sec 
ond  century,  and  an  appreciation  of  its  atmosphere  impossible 
in  Baur's  time,  makes  it  inconceivable  that  the  books  which 
he  assigns  to  it  could,  for  the  most  part,  have  been  then  written. 
They  are  not  of  that  age  and  outlook. 

By  the  time  that  Baur  began  his  work,  and  for  the  next  gen 
eration,  German  theologians  were  divided  into  three  main 
groups.  On  one  extreme  stood  the  rationalists,  the  continua 
tion  of  the  type  of  the  closing  eighteenth  century.  Among 
them  none  was  of  greater  influence  than  Heinrich  Eberhard 
Gottlob  Paulus  (1761-1851),  professor  from  1789  in  Jena,  who 
spent  the  latter  part  of  his  long  life  (1811-1844)  as  professor 
in  Heidelberg.  An  opponent  of  all  supernaturalism,  his  Life 
of  Jesus  of  1828  is  typical  of  the  woodenness  of  the  rationalism 
of  his  period.  Christ's  walking  on  the  water,  he  explains  as 
a  misunderstanding  of  the  disciples,  viewing  Christ  through 
the  mist  as  He  walked  on  the  shore.  The  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand  was  accomplished  by  the  generous  freedom  with 
which  Christ  bestowed  the  little  food  He  had,  thus  awakening 
the  generosity  of  those  in  the  throng  who  had  a  larger  supply. 
Christ's  death  was  no  real  event.  He  revived  in  the  tomb, 
aroused  by  the  earthquake,  and  returned  to  His  disciples. 

Confessional  orthodoxy  of  the  most  uncompromising  pattern 
had  a  notable  representative  in  Ernst  Wilhelm  Hengstenberg 
(1802-1869),  professor  in  Berlin  from  1826  to  his  death. 

Between  the  two  extremes  stood  a  "mediating"  school, 
largely  influenced  by  Schleiermacher,  sharing  his  warmth  of 


538          THE  "MEDIATING"  THEOLOGIANS 

Christian  feeling,  perhaps  generally  intensified,  strongly  de 
voted,  like  him,  to  the  personal  Christ,  but  disposed  to  accept 
many  of  the  results  of  criticism,  especially  regarding  the  Biblical 
inspiration  and  narratives. 

Most  influential  of  these  "mediating"  theologians  was 
Johann  August  Wilhelm  Neander  (1789-1850).  Of  Hebrew 
parentage,  originally  David  Mendel,  he  took  the  name  by 
which  he  is  known  at  baptism  in  1806,  to  signify  his  new  birth. 
A  student  under  Schleiermacher  in  Halle,  it  was  his  teacher's 
influence  that  secured  for  him  a  professorship  in  Berlin  in  1813, 
which  he  filled  with  distinction  till  his  death  in  1850.  Nean 
der  turned  his  attention  to  church  history  with  a  series  of  re 
markable  monographs,  and  in  1826  published  the  first  volume 
of  his  History  of  the  Christian  Religion  and  Church,  at  which 
he  labored  for  the  rest  of  his  life.  Distinguished  by  thorough 
use  of  the  sources,  Neander's  conception  of  the  history  of  the 
church  was  that  of  a  divine  life  gaining  increasing  control  over 
the  lives  of  men.  That  life  is  manifested  in  individuals. 
Hence,  Neander's  work  was  a  series  of  striking  biographical 
portraits.  Its  weakness  was  its  over-emphases  on  the  influence 
of  individuals,  and  its  scanty  appreciation  of  the  institutional 
or  corporate  life  of  the  church.  Yet  it  put  church  history  on  a 
new  plane  of  achievement.  Quite  as  significant  as  his  writings 
were  the  influence  of  Neander's  personal  intercourse  with  his 
students,  and  his  childlike,  unaffected  Christian  trust.  "The 
heart  makes  the  theologian,"  was  frequently  on  his  lips,  and 
expresses  his  character.  Few  men  have  been  more  personally 
helpful  or  more  beloved. 

A  similar  personal  influence  was  exercised  by  Friedrich 
August  Gottreu  Tholuck  (1799-1877),  who  became  a  professor 
in  Berlin  in  1823,  but  held  a  chair  in  Halle  from  1826  to  his 
death.  A  man  of  Pietistic  sympathies,  yet  with  acceptance  of 
the  critical  views  in  many  features,  he  turned  Halle  from  the 
rationalism  which  had  dominated  since  the  time  of  Wolff  to  the 
Evangelicalism  which  still  characterizes  it.  As  a  preacher  he 
was  distinguished.  His  kindness  to  English  and  American 
students  was  unwearied. 

A  third  important  representative  of  the  "mediating"  school 
was  Isaac  August  Dorner  (1809-1884),  a  student  in  Tubingen 
from  1827  to  1832,  and  an  instructor  there  in  1834.  After  ser 
vice  in  a  number  of  German  universities  he  closed  his  career  as 


DORNER  AND  STRAUSS  539 

professor  in  Berlin  from  1862  to  his  death  in  1884.  Dorner's 
most  important  early  publication  was  his  Doctrine  of  the  Person 
of  Christ  of  1839.  His  completed  theology  was  formulated  in 
fulness,  late  in  life,  in  his  System  of  the  Doctrines  of  Faith  of 
1879-1880.  Theology  and  philosophy  are  truly  akin,  but  both 
embody  themselves  in  a  progressive  historic  development. 
Christian  belief  thus  finds  its  attestation  in  the  Christian  con 
sciousness,  which  in  turn  recognizes  the  validity  of  the  spiritual 
experience  recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  and  has  had  its  grow 
ing  clarification  in  Christian  history.  The  central  doctrine  of 
Christianity  is  the  incarnation  in  which  Christ  is  the  revelation 
of  what  God  is,  and  of  what  man  may  be — the  Head  of  human 
ity.  Dorner  had  much  influence  in  Great  Britain  and  America. 
A  comparatively  minor  feature  of  his  system,  that  man's  moral 
status  is  not  finally  determined  till  he  has  been  brought,  here 
or  hereafter,  to  the  knowledge  of  the  historic  Christ,  adopted 
by  the  theologians  of  Andover  Seminary,  and  popularly  known 
as  "continued  probation,"  led  to  the  heated  "Andover  contro 
versy"  in  America  in  the  eighties  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

This  "mediating  school,"  by  reason  of  its  warm  Christian 
faith,  and  its  partial,  though  cautious,  acceptance  of  critical 
positions,  had  no  little  following  in  lands  essentially  theologically 
conservative  like  the  United  States ;  but  like  all  compromising 
parties  its  influence  was  temporary,  and  in  Germany  has 
hardly  survived  its  principal  leaders. 

The  most  epoch-making  book  in  German  theological  devel 
opment  came  not  from  any  of  these  schools,  but  from  a  young 
scholar  of  twenty-seven  at  the  University  of  Tubingen,  in  1835, 
David  Friedrich  Strauss  (1808-1874).  Strauss  had  made  him 
self  at  home  in  the  Hegelian  philosophy.  He  was  familiar  with 
the  earlier  positions  of  Baur.  He  was,  also,  acquainted  with 
the  interpretation  as  mythical  which  the  historian  and  states 
man  Barthold  Georg  Niebuhr  (1776-1831)  had  made  of  the 
early  story  of  Rome.  These  principles  he  now  applied  to  the 
life  of  Christ.  He  was  far  from  denying  that  much  could  be 
known  of  Jesus'  earthly  career;  it  must  be  viewed,  however, 
as  moving  wholly  in  the  realm  of  the  human,  like  other  his 
torical  events.  Of  the  Gospel  sources,  he  regarded  that  bearing 
the  name  of  John  as  most  removed  in  time  and  of  the  least 
historical  worth,  thus  differing  from  much  of  the  scholarship 
immediately  before  him  which,  notably  that  of  Schleiermacher, 


540  STRAUSS 

had  preferred  John  to  the  others.  Strauss  gave  the  first  place 
to  Matthew,  but  none  of  the  Gospels  were  by  eye-witnesses. 
Miracles  are  inherently  impossible ;  but  the  Gospels  are  full  of 
them.  The  ordinary  rationalistic  interpretations,  like  those 
of  Paulus  (ante,  p.  537),  are  ridiculous;  the  assertions  of  the 
ultra-rationalists,  like  Reimarus  (ante,  p.  526),  that  they  were  re 
counted  with  intent  to  deceive,  are  impossible.  The  only  ade 
quate  explanation  is  that  the  simple,  natural  facts  of  Christ's 
life  are  covered  over  with  myth.  The  men  of  that  time  were 
expecting  a  Messiah  who  would  be  a  wonder-worker ;  they  were 
looking  for  the  fulfilment  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  ;  they  had 
great  true  ideas,  such  as  that  the  race  is  partly  divine  and  partly 
human,  that  it  rises  above  death  by  union  with  God.  These 
were  attributed  to,  or  regarded  as  impersonated  in,  Christ. 
Jesus  lived ;  but  the  Christ  of  the  New  Testament  is  therefore, 
essentially,  in  all  His  superhuman  characteristics  a  creation  of 
myth. 

Strauss' s  book  aroused  an  enormous  controversy.  He  had 
attacked  the  views  of  every  party  in  contemporary  Germany, 
the  orthodox,  the  rationalists  of  all  shades,  the  " mediating'* 
theologians.  He  met  unsparing  denunciation.  He  was  de 
barred  all  further  theological  employment,  and  lived  an  em 
bittered  existence.  Yet,  looking  back  from  the  lapse  of  nearly 
three-quarters  of  a  century,  it  is  evident  that  his  work  placed 
the  investigation  of  the  life  of  Christ  on  a  new  plane,  that  he 
answered  conclusively  the  older  rationalists,  and  that  the  dis 
cussions  which  he  inaugurated  have  been  of  immense  service. 
Though  the  legend,  that  is,  the  transformation  of  the  actual 
facts  by  retelling  and  accretion,  is  generally  preferred  to  the 
myth,  such  explanation  of  much  otherwise  perplexing  in  the 
Gospels  is  widely  accepted.  Strauss' s  estimate  of  the  relative 
low  historic  value  of  the  Johannine  Gospel,  though  not  undis 
puted,  is  very  generally  entertained.  His  preference  for  Mat 
thew  has  almost  universally  given  place,  especially  since  the 
labors  of  Heinrich  Julius  Holtzmann  (1832-1910),  to  a  view  that 
sees  in  Mark  the  oldest  narrative,  and  posits  by  its  side,  as  the 
other  main  source  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  an  early  collection  of 
Christ's  sayings. 

Granting  the  services  of  Strauss's  youthful  work  in  the  de 
velopment  of  New  Testament  scholarship,  two  fundamental 
criticisms  of  his  method  as  a  whole  remain.  Either  the  church 


STRAUSS,  RENAN,  RITSCHL  541 

created  that  which  is  important  in  the  figure  of  Christ,  albeit 
unconsciously ;  or  Christ  is  the  source  of  the  church.  If  Strauss 
and  those  who  share  his  essential  position  were  right,  the 
former  conclusion  is  true;  but  it  seems  much  more  difficult  of 
acceptance  than  the  latter.  Nor  has  the  purely  human  his 
torical  interpretation  of  the  life  of  Christ,  though  largely  de 
veloped  to  the  present,  led  to  the  construction  of  a  really  plausi 
ble  picture  that  could  long  be  maintained.  As  one  of  the 
ablest  living  students  of  the  history  of  the  investigation  of  the 
life  of  Christ  has  asserted,  its  results  have  been  essentially  fail 
ure.1  The  sayings  of  Jesus  Himself,  and  the  beliefs  of  the  early 
church  as  witnessed  by  the  Pauline  letters,  demand,  as  Fried- 
rich  Loofs  (1858-)  of  Halle  contends,2  a  Being  impossible  of 
classification  merely  in  the  categories  of  humanity. 

Strauss's  work  was  the  inspiration,  in  large  measure,  of  the 
French  scholar,  Ernst  Renan  (1823-1892).  His  Life  of  Jesus, 
of  1863,  was  indebted,  though  in  less  measure,  also  to  the  work 
of  other  German  students.  The  literary  skill,  the  charm  with 
which  Renan's  marvellous  pen  depicted  the  purely  human  life 
of  a  Galilean  peasant  prophet,  gave  Renan's  work  enormous 
and  permanent  popularity.  Yet  it  was  sentimental,  theatrical, 
and,  in  its  use  of  the  sources,  fundamentally  insincere.  Infi 
nitely  superior  to  Strauss  in  literary  art,  in  other  respects 
Renan's  work  stood  on  a  far  lower  level. 

The  most  potent  influence  alike  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
history  of  the  early  church  and  of  theology  in  Germany  during 
the  last  half-century  has  been  that  of  Albrecht  Ritschl  (1822- 
1889).  A  disciple  at  first  of  the  school  of  Baur,  he  broke  with 
its  main  contentions  when  he  published  the  second  edition  of 
his  Origin  of  the  Old  Catholic  Church  in  1857.  Baur's  Hegelian 
Petrine  thesis  and  Pauline  antithesis  are  not  adequate  explana 
tions  of  the  growth  of  the  early  church.  There  were  differ 
ences,  but  all  parties  had  a  greater  fundamental  unity  in  own 
ing  the  mastery  of  Jesus.  Nor  are  the  unlikenesses  of  early 
Christianity  resolvable  into  two  sharply  antagonistic  parties. 
There  were  many  shades  of  opinion.  Christianity  came  into 
no  empty  world,  but  one  filled  with  religious,  philosophical,  and 
institutional  ideas.  By  them,  especially  on  Gentile  soil,  the 

1  Albert  Schweitzer  (1875-),  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus,  1910. 

2  What  is  the  Truth  about  Jesus  Christ,  1913 ;  also  Wer  war  Jesus  Christus, 
1916. 


542  RITSCHL 

simple,  primitive  truths  of  Christianity  were  profoundly  modi 
fied,  resulting  in  the  theology  and  institutions  of  the  Old 
Catholic  Church.  .This  fertile  and  illuminating  interpretation 
is  that  most  widely  accepted  by  modern  Protestant  scholars. 

Ritschl  began  teaching  in  the  University  of  Bonn  in  1846. 
In  1864  he  became  professor  in  Gottingen,  where  he  remained 
till  his  death.  Here  he  published,  in  1870-1874,  his  chief  the 
ological  work,  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Justification  and  Recon 
ciliation.  Ritschl  had  few  personal  disciples,  but  the  propa 
gating  influence  of  his  writings  was  great. 

Ritschl  was  much  influenced  by  Kant's  assertion  of  moral 
feeling  as  the  basis  of  practical  certainty  and  denial  of  absolute 
intellectual  knowledge,  and  by  Schleiermacher's  affirmation  of 
religious  consciousness  as  the  foundation  of  conviction.  Yet 
Schleiermacher's  assertion  of  the  normative  value  of  religious 
consciousness  was,  to  his  thinking,  too  individual.  The  real 
consciousness  is  not  that  of  the  individual,  but  that  of  the 
Christian  community,  the  church.  Nor  is  that  consciousness 
a  source  of  abstract  speculative  knowledge.  It  has  to  do  with 
eminently  practical,  personal  relationships — those  of  God  and 
the  religious  community — sin  and  salvation.  Hence  "natural" 
or  speculative  philosophic  theology  is  valueless.  Philosophy 
may  give,  as  with  Aristotle,  a  "first  cause" ;  but  that  is  far  from 
a  loving  Father.  Such  a  practical  revelation  is  made  to  us 
only  through  Christ.  That  revelation  is  mediated  to  us  through 
the  consciousness  of  the  first  disciples.  Hence  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  as  revealing  their  religious  background,  and  especially 
the  New  Testament,  as  recording  their  consciousness  of  Christ 
and  His  Gospel,  are  of  supreme  value.  To  ascertain  the  re 
ligious  consciousness  recorded  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
no  theory  of  inspiration  is  necessary,  only  normal  historical 
investigation. 

Though  Ritschl  thus  rejected  metaphysics  as  an  aid  to 
Christian  truth,  he  made  much  use  of  a  theory  of  knowledge 
advocated  by  the  philosopher  Rudolf  Hermann  Lotze  (1817- 
1881).  While  it  is  true,  Lotze  held  with  Kant,  that  things 
as  they  are  in  themselves  cannot  be  known,  he  affirmed  that 
they  are  truly  known  in  their  attributes  or  activities.  A  brick 
pavement  is  known,  and  truly  known,  to  me  as  a  sidewalk. 
To  the  ants  whose  mounds  of  sand  rise  between  the  bricks  it 
may  be  a  home.  What  it  is  abstractly  or  in  itself  I  have  no 


RECENT  GERMAN  TENDENCIES  543 

means  of  knowing.  If  that  knowledge  in  its  attributes  is  one 
affecting  my  cpnduct  it  is  a  "value  judgment."  So  Ritschl 
held  that  to  those  who  came  in  contact  with  Him  in  the  first 
Christian  community,  Christ  was  truly  a  revelation  of  what 
God  is  in  love,  the  pattern  of  what  man  may  be,  the  bearer  of 
God's  moral  authority  over  men,  and  the  Founder  of  the  king 
dom  of  God.  As  such  He  was  truly  known ;  but  to  ask  whether 
He  was  pre-existent,  was  of  two  natures,  or  was  one  person  of 
a  Trinity,  is  to  ask  what  the  experience  of  the  early  church 
could  not  answer,  and  what  only  metaphysics  could  assert  or 
deny.  This  recognition  of  what  Christ  is  and  signifies,  arouses 
faith  in  men,  that  is  trust  and  love  toward  God  through  Christ. 
This  new  attitude  is  accompanied  by  the  forgiveness  and  re 
moval  of  sin,  which  constituted  the  barrier  between  man  and 
God — justification — and  the  new  relationship  expresses  itself 
in  desire  to  do  the  will  of  God  and  to  live  the  life  of  the  king 
dom — reconciliation.  The  Christian  life  is  essentially  social, 
hence  Redeemer,  redeemed,  and  the  redeemed  community  are 
inseparable  conceptions.  These  ideas  of  salvation  Ritschl 
believed  have  never  been  more  clearly  formulated,  in  later 
church  history,  than  by  Luther. 

Ritschl's  spiritual  disciples  have  been  by  no  means  blind 
followers,  and  much  variety  of  interpretation  may  be  found 
among  them.  Their  influence  among  those  in  leadership  in 
German  religious  thinking  is  great.  Among  them  may  be  men 
tioned  the  prince  of  church  historians,  Adolf  von  Harnack,  of 
Berlin  (1851-),  his  eminent  younger  contemporary,  Friedrich 
Loofs  of  Halle  (1858-) ;  and  of  theologians,  Ferdinand  Kat- 
tenbusch  of  Halle  (1851-)  and  Wilhelm  Herrmann  of  Mar 
burg  (1846-).  In  general,  the  Ritschlians  have  been  marked  by 
an  earnest,  vital  religious  life,  and  a  contagious  warmth  of  piety. 

In  spite  of  the  spread  of  Ritschlianism  the  school  of  Baur  was 
continued  in  modified  form,  with  Hegelian  outlook  in  meta 
physics,  by  Otto  Pfleiderer  of  Berlin  (1839-1908). 

More  conservative  than  the  Ritschlian  school,  yet  with  much 
influence  from  modern  problems,  is  Reinhold  Seeberg  (1859-) 
of  Berlin,  who  presents  "a  modern  positive  theology." 

Yet  a  reaction  from  the  emphasis  of  Ritschl  was  almost  in 
evitable.  His  rejection  of  metaphysics,  his  assertion  of  the 
fundamental  uniformity  of  religious  experience  now  and  in 
the  days  of  primitive  Christianity,  were  sure  to  arouse  question. 


544  RECENT  GERMAN  TENDENCIES 

Especially  the  rise  of  the  study  of  comparative  religions  was 
certain  to  awake  inquiry  whether  that  principle  of  growth  un 
der  the  influence  of  external  religious  and  philosophical  ideas 
which  Ritschl  himself  had  applied  so  brilliantly  to  the  develop 
ment  of  Christian  doctrine,  when  once  that  was  planted  in  the 
world,  was  not  to  be  applied,  as  he  had  not,  to  the  beginnings 
of  Christianity  itself.  The  result  is  the  rising,  though  as  yet 
far  from  dominant,  Religions geschichtliche  school  which  counts 
such  representatives  as  William  Wrede  (1859-1906)  of  Breslau, 
Wilhelm  Bousset  (1865-)  of  Gottingen,  and  especially  Ernst 
Troeltsch  (1865-)  of  Heidelberg. 

It  is  evident  that  German  theological  development  is  still  in 
progress. 


SECTION  XIII.      ENGLAND   IN  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY 

English  religious  life  in  the  opening  years  of  the  nineteenth 
century  was  dominated  by  the  spiritual  awakening  of  the  great 
Methodist  revival,  which  was  leading  to  large  separation  from 
the  establishment  (ante,  pp.  518,  519).  In  the  establishment 
that  revived  zeal  was  represented  by  the  Evangelical,  or  low- 
church  party,  like  the  Methodists,  keenly  alive  to  works  of 
practical  and  missionary  activity  (ante,  pp.  519-523) ;  yet  it 
was  far  from  dominating  the  Church  of  England  as  a  whole. 
Its  enterprise  and  its  good  works  were  in  contrast  to  the  apathy 
of  the  establishment  in  general.  Intellectually,  all  parties  in 
the  Church  of  England  stood  on  the  basis  of  the  rather  pro 
vincial  discussions  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Theology  was 
looked  upon  in  the  same  rationalistic  fashion — a  system  of  in 
tellectual  demonstration,  or  of  authoritative  revelation,  or 
both  combined.  The  stirrings  of  new  intellectual  forces  were 
being  felt  however.  English  poetry  flowered  into  splendid 
blossoming  with  the  opening  years  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
Romanticism,  as  powerfully  as  in  Germany  (ante,  p.  529),  was 
beginning  to  produce  an  intellectual  atmosphere  wholly  unlike 
that  of  the  preceding  age.  The  novels  of  Sir  Walter  Scott  are 
familiar  illustrations  of  this  new  outlook.  A  new  humanitari- 
anism,  largely  due  to  the  Methodist  revival,  was  developing, 
and  was  to  be  manifested  multitudinously  in  reformatory 
movements.  All  the  tendencies  were  sure  to  affect  theological 
thinking  and  religious  ideals. 


COLERIDGE  545 

Probably  the  most  stimulating  force  in  the  religious  thinking 
of  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  was  that  of 
Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge  (1772-1834),  eminent  as  a  poet,  lit 
erary  critic,  and  philosopher.  A  Neo-Platonist  in  his  early 
sympathies,  study  in  Germany,  in  1798  and  1799,  led  to  ulti 
mate  acquaintance  not  only  with  the  masters  of  German  litera 
ture  but  with  the  thought  of  Kant,  Fichte,  and  Schelling,  and 
a  philosophical  outlook  then  fully  unfamiliar  in  England. 
Coleridge  never  worked  out  a  rounded  system.  His  most 
significant  volume  was  his  Aids  to  Reflection  of  1825.  Over 
against  the  rationalizing  of  Paley  he  held  to  a  distinction  be 
tween  "  reason "  and  "  understanding."  To  Coleridge  "  reason " 
was  a  power  of  intuitive  perception,  an  "inward  beholding," 
by  which  religious  truths  are  directly  perceived.  This  "moral 
reason"  has,  as  its  associate  "conscience,"  which  is  an  uncon 
ditional  command,  and  has  as  its  postulates  the  moral  law,  a 
divine  lawgiver,  and  a  future  life.  Religious  certainty  is  thus 
based  not  on  external  proofs  but  on  religious  consciousness. 
Hence,  he  has  been  called  the  "English  Schleiermacher."  In 
most  respects  Coleridge  was  the  forerunner  of  the  broad- 
church  way  of  thinking ;  but  in  his  emphasis  on  the  church  as 
a  divine  institution,  higher  and  nobler  than  anything  "by  law 
established,"  he  prepared  the  way  for  the  high-church  party. 

The  work  of  Coleridge  in  its  religious  aspects  was  continued 
by  Thomas  Arnold  (1795-1842),  who  began  his  famous  master 
ship  of  Rugby  in  1828.  A  man  of  profound  and  simple  Chris 
tian  faith,  his  helpfulness  to  his  pupils  was  great.  His  views 
much  resembled  those  of  Herder  (ante,  p.  532).  The  Bible  is 
a  literature,  to  be  understood  in  the  light  of  the  times  in  which 
it  was  written,  but  its  divine  truth  finds  us. 

Biblical  criticism  was  furthered,  in  a  very  moderate  fashion, 
by  Henry  Hart  Milman  (1791-1868),  dean  of  St.  Paul's,  Lon 
don,  from  1849,  by  his  History  of  the  Jews  of  1829,  in  which  he 
applied  critical  methods  to  the  Old  Testament.  His  most 
valuable  work  was  his  History  of  Latin  Christianity  of  1855. 

Not  willing  to  be  reckoned  to  the  broad-church  school,  yet 
contributing  much  to  its  spread,  was  John  Frederick  Denison 
Maurice  (1805-1872).  The  son  of  a  Unitarian  minister,  he 
conformed  to  the  establishment,  and  became  chaplain  of 
Guy's  Hospital  in  London.  In  1840  he  was  appointed  to  a 
chair  in  King's  College,  of  which  he  was  deprived  for  his  opin- 


546  THE  BROAD-CHURCH  TENDENCY 

ions  in  1853.  The  year  after  he  founded  the  Working  Men's 
College,  and  was  instrumental  in  inaugurating  a  Christian 
socialist  movement.  In  1866  he  was  appointed  to  a  pro 
fessorship  in  Cambridge.  To  Maurice's  thinking,  Christ  is 
the  Head  of  all  humanity.  None  are  under  the  curse  of  God. 
All  are  sons,  who  need  no  other  reconciliation  than  a  recogni 
tion  by  them  of  their  sonship,  with  the  filial  love  and  service 
to  which  such  recognition  will  naturally  lead.  All  will  ulti 
mately  be  brought  home  to  God  and  none  forever  lost. 

Not  very  unlike  Maurice  in  his  theology,  but  primarily  a 
great  preacher,  was  Frederick  William  Robertson  (1816-1853), 
educated  under  Evangelical  influences,  then  passing  through 
a  period  of  intense  questioning  to  a  broad-church  position. 
From  1847  to  his  early  death  he  was  minister  in  Brighton.  No 
English  sermons  of  the  last  century  have  been  so  influential  on 
both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  as  those  of  Robertson.  Spiritual 
truth  must  be  spiritually  discerned  rather  than  intellectually 
proved.  The  nobility  of  Christ's  humanity  attests  and  leads 
to  faith  in  His  divinity. 

Much  influence  in  the  spread  of  broad-church  opinions  was 
wielded  by  Charles  Kingsley  (1819-1875),  rector  of  Eversley, 
the  novelist,  and  by  Alfred,  Lord  Tennyson  (1809-1892),  whose 
In  Memoriam  of  1850  was  fully  a  broad-church  poem.  Sim 
ilarly  to  be  reckoned  were  Arthur  Penrhyn  Stanley  (1815-1881), 
dean  of  Westminster,  and  Frederic  William  Farrar  (1831-1903), 
dean  of  Canterbury.  Great  commotion  was  caused  in  1860 
by  the  Essays  and  Reviews,  in  which  a  group  of  Oxford  scholars 
tried  to  present  Christianity  in  the  light  of  contemporary  sci 
ence  and  historical  criticism,  and  by  the  trial  of  Bishop  John 
William  Colenso  (1814-1883)  of  Natal  for  his  Pentateuchal 
criticism  published  in  1862.  The  broad  church  was,  however, 
never,  strictly  speaking,  a  party.  Its  numbers  were  relatively 
few,  but  its  influence  on  English  religious  thought,  in  varying 
degrees,  wide-spread.  In  the  last  half-century  England,  like 
other  Protestant  lands,  has  witnessed  the  steady  advance  of 
Biblical  criticism,  championed  conspicuously  by  Samuel  Rolles 
Driver  (1846-1914)  and  Thomas  Kelly  Cheyne  (1841-1915), 
both  of  Oxford. 

The  Evangelical  or  low-church  party  has  remained  largely 
represented  in  the  Church  of  England,  especially  among  the 
laity. 


RISE  OF  THE  ANGLO-CATHOLIC  PARTY     547 

By  far  the  largest  movement  within  the  Church  of  England 
in  the  nineteenth  century  in  numerical,  and  in  many  respects 
in  spiritual,  significance  has  been  the  development  of  the  high- 
church,  or  Anglo-Catholic  party.  The  early  years  of  the  second 
quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  saw  several  significant 
breaches  in  the  exclusive  privileges  of  the  establishment.  The 
Test  (ante,  p.  475)  and  Corporation  Acts  were  repealed  in 
1828.  Roman  [Catholics  were  made  eligible  to  the  House  of 
Commons  and  to  most  public  offices  in  1829.  The  July  Revo 
lution  of  1830  in  France  stimulated  a  demand  for  reform  in 
parliamentary  representation,  which  triumphed,  after  heated 
struggles,  in  1832,  and  transferred  power  largely  from  the 
landed  gentry  to  the  middle  classes,  thus  increasing  Non- 
Conformist  influence.  To  many  conservative  churchmen  it 
seemed  that  the  foundations  of  church  and  state  were  being 
removed.  They  were  disposed  to  raise  the  question  of  the 
nature  of  the  church  itself.  Is  it  an  essentially  unalterable 
divine  institution,  or  may  it  be  altered,  as  so  often  since  the 
Reformation,  by  government  enactment?  The  form  their  an 
swer  took  was  to  be  determined  largely  by  the  romantic  re 
vival  of  interest  in  the  primitive  and  mediaeval. 

During  these  discussions  several  young  clergymen,  mostly 
associated  with  Oriel  College,  Oxford,  were  led  to  take  the  steps 
that  inaugurated  the  "Oxford  movement,"  as  it  was  often 
called,  which  was  the  birth  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  party.  Prob 
ably  the  most  influential  of  the  group,  while  his  brief  life  lasted, 
was  Richard  Hurrell  Froude  (1803-1836).  To  him  the  church 
is  in  possession  of  the  truth,  important  elements  of  which  primi 
tive  endowment  were  repudiated  by  the  reformers.  A  revival 
of  fasting,  clerical  celibacy,  reverence  for  the  saints  and 
"Catholic  usages"  he  deemed  imperative.  Closely  associated 
with  Froude  was  a  man  of  great  pulpit  and  intellectual  abili 
ties,  whose  early  training  had  been  Evangelical,  but  who  had 
come  to  share  Fronde's  feelings,  John  Henry  Newman  (1801- 
1890).  A  third  of  the  Oriel  group  was  John  Keble  (1792-1866), 
of  Nonjuror  ancestry,  and  already  distinguished  as  the  author 
of  the  most  popular  volume  of  religious  poetry  that  was  issued 
in  the  nineteenth  century,  The  Christian  Year  of  1827.  In 
hearty  sympathy  stood  a  Cambridge  scholar,  Hugh  James 
Rose  (1795-1838),  who  founded  the  British  Magazine  in  1832, 
to  further  faith  in  the  divine  authority  and  essential  unchange- 


548  KEBLE,  NEWMAN,  AND  PUSEY 

ableness  of  the  church.  To  all  these  men  the  course  of  recent 
political  events  seemed  menacing.  The  formal  beginning  of 
the  Anglo-Catholic  movement  is  usually  associated  with 
Keble's  sermon  of  July  14,  1833,  in  Oxford,  on  the  National 
Apostasy.  In  September  of  that  year  Keble  formulated  the 
principles  for  which  he  and  his  associates  stood.  The  way  to 
salvation  is  through  reception  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
in  the  Eucharist,  which  is  validly  administered  only  through 
those  in  apostolical  succession.  This  is  the  treasure  of  the 
church — a  church  which  must  in  all  ways  be  restored  to  the 
purity  of  its  undivided  early  centuries. 

The  same  month  Newman  began  the  publication  of  the  fa 
mous  Tracts  for  the  Times,  which  gave  to  the  movement  they 
fostered  the  name  "Tractarianism."  By  1835  these  associates 
had  won  the  support  of  one  who,  next  to  Newman,  and  fully 
after  Newman's  defection,  was  to  be  its  leader,  Edward  Bou- 
verie  Pusey  (1800-1882).  A  man  of  great  earnestness  and 
piety,  Pusey  was  so  fully  ultimately  to  become  the  head  of  the 
Anglo-Catholic  movement,  that  it  was  largely  called  "Pusey- 
ism" — to  Pusey  it  was  the  revival  of  primitive  Christianity. 

Of  these  Tracts,  of  which  ninety  were  issued,  Newman  wrote 
twenty-three.  Keble,  Pusey,  and  Froude,  with  others,  also 
contributed.  To  Newman  the  Church  of  England  was  the 
golden  mean  between  Protestantism  and  Rome;  but  as  the 
series  went  on  the  writers  emphasized  increasingly  those  doc 
trines  and  practices  which,  though  undoubtedly  ancient,  are 
popularly  identified  with  Rome.  Thus,  Pusey  taught  the  re 
generative  nature  of  baptism  and  the  sacrificial  aspect  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Confession  was  commended.  Reserve  was 
to  be  practised  in  the  use  of  the  Bible  and  the  proclamation  of 
religious  truth.  It  was  the  ninetieth  Tract  by  Newman,  in 
1841,  that  aroused  most  controversy.  Newman  held  that  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles  were  not  to  be  interpreted  in  accordance 
with  the  intention  of  their  authors,  but  in  the  "sense  of  the 
Catholic  Church."  The  bishop  of  Oxford  now  forbad  the  con 
tinuation  of  the  Tracts. 

Newman  was  at  the  height  of  his  influence  when  Tract  Ninety 
was  published.  The  Anglo-Catholic  movement  numbered 
hundreds  of  followers  among  the  clergy.  Newman  was  doubt 
ing,  however,  the  catholicity  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  on 
October  9,  1845,  he  made  his  submission  to  Rome.  Several 


THE  ANGLO-CATHOLIC  PARTY  549 

hundred  clergy  and  laymen  followed  him  into  the  Roman  com 
munion,  of  whom  the  most  distinguished  was  Henry  Edward 
Manning  (1808-1892),  who  conformed  to  Rome  in  1851,  and 
was  created  a  cardinal  in  1875.  Great  excitement  was  caused  in 
1850  by  the  re-establishment  in  England  by  Pope  Pius  IX  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  diocesan  episcopate,  which  had  been  in  abey 
ance  since  the  Reformation.  Manning  became  an  extreme 
ultramontane  supporter  of  papal  claims,  unlike  Newman,  who 
was  always  moderate,  and  who,  though  the  most  eminent  of 
English  Roman  Catholics,  was  not  given  a  cardinalate  till 
1879. 

These  conversions  to  Rome  were  a  severe  blow  to  the  Anglo- 
Catholic  party,  but  it  weathered  the  storm  under  Pusey's  able 
leadership,  and  in  a  few  years  was  stronger  than  ever.  As  its 
doctrinal  modifications  became  established,  it  concerned  itself 
increasingly  with  the  "enrichment"  of  the  liturgy,  by  the  in 
troduction  of  usages  which  Protestantism  had  discarded. 
These  changes  encountered  much  popular  and  legal  opposition ; 
but  the  modifications  desired  by  the  ritualists  have  been  largely 
secured.  In  1860  the  English  Church  Union,  now  widely  ex 
tended,  was  organized  to  support  high-church  faith  and  prac 
tice.  The  high-church  movement  is  still  a  growing  force  in  the 
Church  of  England.  To  a  degree  unparalleled  in  other  coun 
tries,  the  laity  of  England,  with  conspicuous  exceptions,  are 
disposed  to  regard  disputes  between  the  various  parties  in  the 
Church  of  England  as  clerical  problems,  so  that  lay  religious 
life  in  the  establishment  is  more  uniform  than  might  be  sup 
posed. 

Any  estimate  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  movement  would  be 
erroneous  that  failed  to  recognize  its  profound  religious  zeal. 
If  it  has  Romanized  the  worship  and  the  theology  of  the  church 
—it  would  prefer  to  say  Catholicized  it — it  has  shown  marvel 
lous  devotion,  especially  to  the  poor,  neglected,  and  unchurched. 
It  has  done  much  to  regain  the  hold  of  the  church  on  the  lower 
classes  which  seemed  to  have  almost  ceased  when  the  move 
ment  began.  Its  sympathy  with  the  destitute  and  delinquent 
has  been  intelligent  and  self-sacrificing.  It  has  been  a  real 
awakening  of  religion,  alike  in  faith  and  good  works. 

The  sister  Protestant  state  church  of  Ireland/always  an  anom 
aly  in  that  it  was  the  governmentally  supported  church  of  a 
minority  of  the  population,  was  disestablished  in  1869.  It  has 


550  THE  NON-CONFORMISTS 

endured  this  change  in  its  fortunes  with  no  diminution  of  effect 
iveness. 

The  nineteenth  century  was  marked  by  a  steady  diminution 
of  the  disabilities  resting  on  Non-Conformists.  In  1813  the  Uni 
tarians  obtained  relief  by  the  repeal  of  penal  acts  against  deniers 
of  the  Trinity.  The  Test  and  Corporation  Acts  were  abolished 
in  1828.  Marriages  were  permitted  in  dissenting  places  of 
worship  in  1836.  Non-Conformists  were  freed  from  taxes  for 
the  benefit  of  the  establishment  in  1868.  In  1871  all  religious 
tests,  save  for  degrees  in  theology,  were  abolished  at  the  Uni 
versities  of  Oxford,  Cambridge,  and  Durham.  In  1880  Non- 
Conformist  services  were  permitted  at  burials  in  churchyards. 

Non-Conformity  has  steadily  grown,  and  is  supposed  to  em 
brace  at  least  half  the  population  of  England.  Its  strength  is 
in  the  middle  classes.  It  has  produced  preachers  of  great 
power,  and  has  had  its  scholars  and  its  social  workers,  but  in 
scholarship  and  in  work  for  the  unchurched  it  has  been  less  em 
inent  than  the  Church  of  England.  The  tendency  among  the 
larger  Evangelical  Non-Conformist  bodies  has  been  strongly 
toward  federation.  Since  1893  England  and  Wales  have  been 
organized  into  a  complete  system  of  local  "councils,"  embrac 
ing  Baptists,  Congregationalists,  Methodists,  Presbyterians, 
and  Quakers,  each  local  church  being  primarily  responsible  for 
its  own  territory — thus  preventing  competition.  These  "coun 
cils"  are  united  in  "federations,"  and  all  culminating  in  the 
National  Council  of  Evangelical  Free  Churches. 

Three  movements  of  interest  have  taken  place  among  English 
Non-Conformists.  Edward  Irving  (1792-1834)  was  a  Scottish 
Presbyterian  minister  in  London,  of  eloquence  and  mystic  ten 
dencies.  By  1828  he  had  become  persuaded  that  the  "gifts" 
of  the  apostolic  age  would  be  restored  if  faith  was  sufficient. 
Though  no  claimant  to  them  himself,  he  believed  by  1830 
that  his  hopes  had  been  fulfilled  in  others.  In  1832  he  was 
deposed  from  his  Presbyterian  ministry.  Soon  after,  six  Apos 
tles  were  believed  to  be  designated  by  prophecy,  which  num 
ber  was  similarly  completed  to  twelve  in  1835.  The  body 
thus  led  took  the  name  Catholic  Apostolic  Church.  In  1842 
an  elaborate  ritual  was  adopted.  The  Apostles  were  regarded 
as  organs  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  speedy  coming  of  Christ 
was  long  expected,  but  the  last  Apostle  died  in  1901.  The 
church  is  represented  also  in  Germany  and  the  United  States. 


PLYMOUTH  BRETHREN.    SALVATION  ARMY    551 

A  second  movement  grew  out  of  reaction  against  the  unspiri- 
tuality  of  the  establishment  in  the  early  years  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  Groups  of  "brethren,"  who  claimed  faith  and  Chris 
tian  love  as  their  only  bonds,  gathered  in  Ireland  and  western 
England.  Their  great  increase  was  through  the  labors  of 
John  Nelson  Darby  (1800-1882),  formerly  a  clergyman,  in  the 
vicinity  of  Plymouth  about  1830.  They  are  therefore  generally 
nicknamed  "Plymouth  Brethren."  To  their  thinking  all  be 
lievers  are  priests,  and  hence  formal  ministries  are  to  be  re 
jected.  Creeds  are  to  be  refused.  The  Holy  Spirit  guides  all 
true  believers,  and  unites  them  in  faith  and  worship  after  the 
apostolic  model.  Though  professedly  rejecting  all  denomina- 
tionalism,  the  "brethren"  found  themselves  speedily  com 
pelled  to  corporate  acts  of  discipline,  and  are  divided  into  at 
least  six  groups.  Darby  was  an  indefatigable  propagandist. 
Through  his  efforts  the  "brethren"  were  planted  in  Switzer 
land,  France,  Germany,  Canada,  and  the  United  States. 
Among  their  eminent  adherents  have  been  George  Miiller 
(1805-1898),  whose  remarkable  orphan  houses  in  Bristol  were 
supported,  he  believed,  largely  in  direct  answer  to  prayer;  and 
Samuel  Prideaux  Tregelles  (1813-1875),  the  eminent  student 
of  the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  most  important  of  these  new  organizations  is  the  Sal 
vation  Army.  Its  creator,  William  Booth  (1829-1912),  was  a 
New  Connection  Methodist  minister,  who,  after  successful 
revival  work  in  Cardiff,  began  similar  labors  in  London  in 
1864,  out  of  which  an  organization  in  military  form,  with  mili 
tary  obedience,  developed  in  1878,  to  which  the  name  Salva 
tion  Army  was  given  in  1880.  Always  strongly  engaged  in 
practical  philanthropy  as  well  as  street  evangelism,  the  philan 
thropic  work  was  developed  on  a  great  scale  from  1890  onward, 
when  Booth  published  his  In  Darkest  England  and  the  Way 
Out.  In  spite  of  its  autocratic  military  form,  the  Salvation 
Army  is  in  many  respects  a  church.  Though  open  to  the  charge 
of  occasional  arbitrariness,  it  has  done  an  immense  and  benefi 
cent  work  for  the  defective  and  delinquent,  and  has  extended 
to  all  English-speaking  lands,  as  well  as  to  France,  Germany, 
Switzerland,  Italy,  the  Scandinavian  lands,  and  the  Orient. 

The  most  powerful  impulse  toward  modern  religious  think 
ing,  the  world  over,  that  was  contributed  by  England  in  the 
nineteenth  century  came  from  the  work  of  a  naturalist  who, 


552  DARWIN  AND  EVOLUTION 

though  a  Christian  believer  in  early  life,  was  all  his  maturer 
years  a  tolerant  agnostic,  Charles  Robert  Darwin  (1809-1882). 
A  man  of  great  keenness  of  investigation,  remarkable  powers  of 
generalization,  and  transparent  honesty  in  his  use  of  facts  and 
in  his  readiness  to  abandon  all  inferences  which  continued 
observations  did  not  warrant,  his  long  and  patient  work  was 
done  under  the  constant  handicap  of  ill  health.  A  voyage  of 
nearly  five  years,  1831  to  1836,  as  naturalist  of  the  surveying 
ship  Beagle,  laid  the  foundations  of  his  knowledge.  In  1859 
came  his  Origin  of  Species  by  Means  of  Natural  Selection,  in  which 
he  elaborated  his  theories  of  evolution  and  of  the  survival  of 
the  fittest,  reached  practically  contemporaneously  by  his  friend, 
Alfred  Russel  Wallace  (1823-1913).  No  scientific  theory  since 
Newton's  doctrine  of  gravitation  (ante,  p.  483)  has  been  so 
transforming  in  all  realms  of  thought.  Much  modified  in  de 
tails  since  promulgated,  the  theory  of  evolutionary  develop 
ment,  though  accepted  with  varying  degrees  of  fulness,  has 
profoundly  modified  much  theological  thinking,  and  has  to  be 
taken  into  most  serious  consideration  even  by  those  who  deny 
its  applicability  to  the  realm  of  religion. 

SECTION  XIV.      SCOTTISH  DIVISIONS  AND  REUNIONS 

Presbyterianism  was  established  as  the  state  church  of 
Scotland  under  William  and  Mary  in  1690.  In  1707  England 
and  Scotland  were  united  into  one  kingdom  of  Great  Britain; 
but  the  independent  rights  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  were 
safeguarded.  Under  Queen  Anne,  in  1712,  two  important  acts 
were  passed  by  Parliament.  By  one  the  status  of  a  tolerated 
communion  was  given  to  episcopacy,  then  strongly  intrenched 
in  northern  Scotland.  The  other,  destined  to  be  the  source 
of  infinite  trouble,  permitted  "patrons,"  usually  the  crown  or 
the  great  landlords,  to  force  appointments  of  Presbyterian 
ministers  on  hostile  parishioners.  Controversies  were  soon  tur- 
moiling  the  Scottish  church.  In  1718  an  anonymous  seven 
teenth-century  work,  The  Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity,  was  re- 
published  at  the  instigation  of  Thomas  Boston  (1676-1732), 
of  Ettrick,  a  zealous  popular  preacher.  The  Marrow  seemed 
antinomian  to  a  large  portion  of  the  ministry,  as  so  putting  an 
emphasis  on  faith  in  Christ  as  to  exclude  even  the  necessity  of 
repentance.  Boston  won  sympathy.  In  1722  the  "Marrow- 


SCOTTISH  FREE  CHURCHES  553 

men"  were  censured  by  the  General  Assembly.  They  rep 
resented  unquestionably,  however,  a  warm  Evangelical  spirit. 

One  of  these  "Marrowmen,"  Ebenezer  Erskine  (1680-1754), 
of  Stirling,  a  preacher  of  power,  denounced  all  limitation  of  the 
power  of  the  congregation  to  choose  its  minister,  in  1733.  He 
was  disciplined  by  his  synod,  and  he  and  several  associates 
were  deposed  by  the  General  Assembly  in  1740.  Before  these 
censures  were  completed  they  had  founded  the  first  Scottish 
free  church,  ultimately  known  as  the  Secession  Church.  It 
grew  rapidly,  but  was  soon  turmoiled  over  the  question  whether 
the  burgesses  of  the  Scottish  cities  could  properly  swear  to 
support  "the  true  religion  .  .  .  authorized  by  the  laws"  of 
Scotland.  In  1747  the  Secession  Church  divided  into  Anti- 
Burgher,  or  Nonjuror,  and  Burgher  sections.  Further  sub 
divisions  occurred,  but  most  of  the  Anti-Burghers  and  Burgh 
ers  united,  in  1820,  as  the  United  Secession  Church. 

The  question  of  patronage  continued  divisive.  Thomas 
Gillespie  (1708-1774),  of  Carnock,  refused  to  participate  in 
the  installation  of  a  minister  over  an  unwilling  congregation, 
and  was  deposed  by  the  General  Assembly  in  1752.  In  1761 
he  and  like-minded  ministers  founded  the  organization  which 
became  the  Relief  Church.  These  various  secessions  won  large 
popular  support,  especially  among  the  more  earnest-minded. 
By  1765  they  counted  one  hundred  and  twenty  congregations, 
and  one  hundred  thousand  adherents.  In  1847  the  United  Se 
cession  Church  and  the  Relief  Church  combined  as  the  United 
Presbyterian  Church. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  state  church  was  robbed  of 
a  good  deal  of  its  spiritual  strength.  Rationalistic  thought 
penetrated  Scotland  as  the  eighteenth  century  advanced,  as  con 
temporaneously  in  England  and  Germany.  Hume's  specula 
tions  (ante,  p.  490)  were  not  without  influence.  The  result 
was  the  growth  of  what  was  called  Moderatism,  which  was  con 
trolling  in  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  influ 
ential  well  into  the  nineteenth.  To  the  Moderates  generally 
Christianity  was  largely  ethical  rather  than  strongly  experi 
ential  or  doctrinal.  It  was  believed  that  the  patronage  system 
favored  the  appointment  of  Moderates,  where  congregations 
would  often  have  chosen  men  of  more  Evangelical  type.  With 
the  reaction  from  the  French  Revolution,  the  rise  of  Romanti 
cism,  and  the  general  revolt  from  the  rationalism  of  the  eight- 


554  THOMAS  CHALMERS 

eenth  century,  a  warm-hearted  Evangelicalism,  in  sympathy 
also  with  the  liberal  political  aspirations  of  the  people,  began 
to  contest  the  field  with  Moderatism. ' 

From  1815,  when  he  entered  on  a  memorable  pastorate  in 
Glasgow,  the  most  eminent  of  the  Evangelical  party  was  Thomas 
Chalmers  (1780-1847),  distinguished  as  a  preacher,  a  social  re 
former,  a  mathematician,  a  theological  teacher,  and  an  ecclesias 
tical  statesman.  Under  his  leadership,  and  in  the  changed  spirit 
of  the  times,  the  Evangelical  party  rapidly  grew  in  strength. 
Under  Chalmers's  guidance  a  great  campaign  to  meet  the  needs 
of  the  growing  population  of  Scotland  was  inaugurated,  which 
resulted  by  1841  in  the  erection  of  two  hundred  and  twenty 
new  churches  by  popular  gifts.  The  old  question  of  pat 
ronage  still  continued  burning.  In  1834  the  growing  Evangeli 
cal  party  secured  the  passage  by  the  General  Assembly  of  a 
"veto"  rule,  by  which  presbyteries  were  forbidden  to  proceed 
to  installation  where  a  majority  of  the  congregation  were  op 
posed  to  the  candidate.  This  rule  soon  involved  legal  contro 
versy.  The  courts  held  that  the  General  Assembly  had  ex 
ceeded  its  powers.  Parliament  was  asked  for  relief,  which  was 
refused.  Under  Chalmers's  leadership,  therefore,  some  four 
hundred  and  seventy-four  ministers  formally  withdrew  from 
the  state  church  in  1843  and  founded  the  Free  Church  of 
Scotland.  They  gave  up  parishes  and  salaries.  All  had  to 
be  provided  anew ;  but  the  enthusiasm  and  sacrifice  of  the  new 
body  was  equal  to  the  task.  In  general,  it  was  a  withdrawal  of 
the  Evangelical  element  from  the  already  considerably  modified 
but  less  zealous  and  spiritual  "Moderates."  A  third,  and  that 
the  most  active  part,  of  the  state  church  had  gone  out.  Yet 
the  example  of  the  seceders  worked  ultimately  for  a  quickening 
of  zeal  in  the  state  church  itself.  In  1874  the  rights  of  patron 
age,  the  original  ground  of  division,  were  abolished  by  law. 

The  older  separatist  bodies,  combined  since  1847  as  the 
United  Presbyterian  Church,  had  long  rejected  connection 
with  the  state.  The  new  Free  Church  of  Scotland  had 
practically  to  take  the  same  position,  though  Chalmers  and  its 
early  leaders  clung  to  the  conception  of  a  national  state  church, 
free  from  hampering  state  dictation.  This  contention  was 
rendered  academic  by  the  logic  of  facts.  All  circumstances 
counselled  union,  and  therefore,  on  October  31,  1900,  the  vast 
majority  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland  and  the  United 


SCOTTISH  FREE  CHURCHES  555 

Presbyterian  Church  were  joined  in  one  body  as  the  United 
Free  Church  of  Scotland. 

A  minority  of  the  old  Free  Church  refused  the  union,  in 
all  some  sixty-three  congregations,  mostly  in  the  Highlands, 
small  and  strongly  conservative  in  theology  and  practice. 
This  body  was  popularly  known  as  the  Wee  Frees.  It 
brought  legal  claim  to  the  property  of  the  whole  former  Free 
Church.  In  1904  the  law  judges  of  the  House  of  Lords 
awarded  to  the  Wee  Frees  their  whole  claim,  on  the  ground 
that  the  Free  Church  majority,  in  combining  with  the  pro 
fessedly  independent  United  Presbyterians,  had  abandoned  the 
early  Free  Church  belief  in  a  purified  state  church.  The 
situation  created  was  not  merely  unjust,  but  absurd.  Relief 
was  sought  from  Parliament,  and  in  1905  the  property  was 
divided  fairly  equitably  by  a  commission  between  the  Wee 
Frees  and  their  former  brethren,  on  the  basis  of  ability  to 
make  effective  use  of  it.  The  growth  of  modern  views  in  the 
ology  was  also  recognized  by  Parliament,  in  this  act  of  1905, 
by  permission  to  the  state  church  to  formulate  the  terms  of 
subscription  to  the  ancient  confessions  as  it  may  see  fit. 

The  vast  majority  of  independent  Presbyterians  being  thus 
joined  in  the  United  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  and  many  of 
the  grounds  of  contention  with  the  state  church  having  been 
removed,  a  union  between  the  two  in  the  near  future  is  probable 
—foreshadowed  by  the  merger,  in  1916,  of  the  theological 
schools  of  the  established  church  and  the  United  Free  Church 
in  Aberdeen  and  Edinburgh. 

SECTION   XV.      ROMAN   CATHOLICISM 

The  Counter-Reformation  had  spent  its  force  by  the  middle 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  Its  strength  had  been  in  the 
might  of  Spain  and  the  zeal  of  the  Jesuit  order.  Spain  had 
emerged  from  the  Thirty  Years'  War  shorn  of  its  power.  The 
Jesuits,  though  more  potent  than  ever  in  the  counsels  of  the 
Roman  Church,  had  become  more  worldly,  and  had  kept  little 
of  their  earlier  spiritual  zeal.  None  of  the  Popes  of  the  seven 
teenth  or  eighteenth  centuries  were  men  of  commanding  force. 
Several,  like  Innocent  XI  (1676-1689),  Innocent  XII  (1691- 
1700),  or  Benedict  XIV  (1740-1758),  were  of  excellent  character 
and  intentions,  but  they  were  not  rulers  of  men.  The  course 


556  JESUITS  AND  JANSENISTS 

of  the  Roman  Church  was  one  of  increasing  feebleness  in  the 
face  of  the  growing  claims  of  the  Catholic  civil  governments. 
A  really  effective  attack  upon  Protestantism  was  no  longer  pos 
sible,  save  where  it  existed,  as  in  France,  in  predominantly 
Roman  lands. 

Under  Louis  XIV  (1643-1715)  the  French  monarchy  pur 
sued  a  policy  dictated  by  the  King's  absolutism.  As  against 
papal  claim  he  asserted  possession  by  the  crown  of  all  income 
of  vacant  bishoprics,  and  favored  the  proclamation  by  the 
French  clergy  in  1682  of  the  "Gallican  liberties,"  that  civil 
rulers  have  full  authority  in  temporal  affairs,  that  general  coun 
cils  are  superior  to  the  Pope,  that  the  usages  of  the  French 
church  limit  papal  interference,  and  that  the  Pope  is  not  in 
fallible.  The  resulting  quarrel  was  compromised  in  1693  in 
such  wise  that  the  clergy  practically  withdrew  their  assertions, 
but  the  King  kept  the  disputed  income. 

As  against  his  own  subjects,  Louis  XIV's  policy  was  deter 
mined  by  his  conception  of  national  unity  and  Jesuit  influence, 
especially  after  his  marriage  to  Madame  de  Maintenon  in 
1684.  In  1685  he  revoked  the  Edict  of  Nantes  (ante,  p.  441), 
and  made  Protestantism  illegal  under  the  severest  penalties. 
The  ultimate  result  was  disastrous  for  France.  Thousands  of 
its  most  industrious  citizens  emigrated  to  England,  Holland, 
Germany,  and  America.  The  former  alliances  with  Protestant 
Powers  were  ruptured,  contributing  much  to  the  military  fail 
ures  of  the  latter  years  of  Louis  XIV's  reign. 

Jesuit  influence  led  to  equally  disastrous  opposition  by  the 
King  and  Pope  to  Jansenism.  Cornelius  Jansen  (1585-1638), 
bishop  of  Ypres,  an  earnest  Catholic,  was  a  thoroughgoing 
Augustinian,  convinced  that  the  semi-Pelagian  Jesuit  inter 
pretations  of  sin  and  grace  must  be  combated.  His  chief  work, 
Augustinus,  was  published  in  1640,  after  his  death.  Jansen's 
book  was  condemned  by  Pope  Urban  VIII  (1623-1644)  in  1642, 
but  Jansen's  views  found  much  support  among  the  more  deeply 
religious  Catholics  of  France,  notably  in  the  nunnery  of  Port 
Royal,  near  Paris.  The  most  influential  opponent  of  the 
Jesuits  was  Blaise  Pascal  (1623-1662),  especially  in  his  Lettres 
Provinciates  of  1656.  Louis  XIV  supported  the  Jesuit  hos 
tility  to  Jansenism,  and  persecuted  its  followers.  In  1710  the 
buildings  of  Port  Royal  were  torn  down.  Jansenism  had  found 
a  new  leader  of  power  in  Pasquier  Quesnel  (1634-1719),  who 


THE  CATASTROPHE  OF  THE  JESUITS        557 

had  to  seek  safety  in  the  Netherlands.  His  devotional  com 
mentary,  Moral  Reflections  on  the  New  Testament,  of  1687-1692, 
aroused  bitter  Jesuit  hostility,  and  through  their  efforts  Pope 
Clement  XI  (1700-1721),  by  the  bull  Unigenitus  of  1713, 
condemned  one  hundred  and  one  of  Quesnel's  statements,  some 
taken  literally  from  Augustine.  Louis  Antoine  de  Noailles 
(1651-1729),  cardinal  archbishop  of  Paris,  protested  and  ap 
pealed  to  a  general  council.  Opposition  was,  however,  vain. 
The  Jesuits,  supported  by  the  French  monarchy,  ultimately 
triumphed. 

Partly  through  this  Jansenist  controversy,  and  partly  by 
reason  of  quarrels  between  the  Jesuits  and  the  older  Roman 
clergy,  a  division  occurred  in  Utrecht,  in  the  Netherlands,  from 
which  in  1723  a  small,  independent,  so-called  Jansenist  Cath 
olic  Church  originated,  which  still  exists,  with  an  archbishop  in 
Utrecht,  and  bishops  in  Haarlem  and  Deventer. 

For  France  the  expulsion  of  the  Huguenots  and  the  triumph 
of  the  Jesuits  were  great  misfortunes.  While  much  variety  of 
religious  interpretation  was  possible  in  England,  Germany,  and 
Holland,  within  the  bounds  of  Christianity,  in  eighteenth-cen 
tury  France  the  choice  was  only  between  Romanism  of  the 
narrow  Jesuit  type,  which  many  of  its  own  noblest  sons  con 
demned,  and  the  rapidly  rising  tide  of  the  new  rationalism  of  a 
Voltaire  and  his  associates  (ante,  p.  492).  Thousands  pre 
ferred  the  latter,  and  the  destructive  results  were  to  be  obvious 
in  the  French  Revolutionary  treatment  of  the  church. 

The  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  brought  to  the 
Jesuits  their  greatest  catastrophe.  They  had  largely  engaged 
in  colonial  trade,  in  spite  of  its  prohibition  in  their  own  consti 
tutions;  their  political  influence  was  notorious,  and  they  had 
the  hostility  of  the  radical  rationalism  of  the  age.  In  this 
latter  force  they  found  their  most  determined  foes.  The  power 
ful  minister  of  King  Joseph  of  Portugal  (1750-1777),  the  mar 
quis  of  Pombal  (1699-1782),  was  a  man  of  rationalistic  sym 
pathies.  He  was  angered  by  Jesuit  resistance  to  his  policy  in 
Paraguay.  He  opposed  the  free-trade  attitude  of  the  Jesuits. 
In  1759  he  enforced  the  deportation  of  all  Jesuits  from  Por 
tuguese  territory  with  ruthless  high  hand.  France  contempo 
raneously  was  aroused  by  the  scandalous  bankruptcy  of  the 
Jesuit  Lavelette  in  Martinique.  The  controlling  force  in  the 
French  Government  was  that  of  the  duke  of  Choiseul  (1719- 


558  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

1785),  a  sympathizer  with  the  Enlightenment.  He  was  also 
aided  by  Madame  de  Pompadour,  the  mistress  of  Louis  XV 
(1715-1774).  A  large  part  of  the  French  clergy  were  also  hos 
tile  to  the  Jesuits.  In  1764  the  Jesuits  were  suppressed  in 
France.  Spain  and  Naples  expelled  them  in  1767.  The  rulers 
of  these  lands  now  forced  from  Pope  Clement  XIV  (1769-1774) 
the  abolition  of  the  order  in  July,  1773.  These  events  attested 
the  weakness  of  the  papacy.  The  Jesuits  continued  existence 
in  non-Roman  Russia  and  in  Protestant  Prussia. 

The  growth  of  tolerance  in  France  is  shown  by  the  exemp 
tion  from  persecution  accorded  to  Protestants  by  the  govern 
ment  of  Louis  XVI  in  1787. 

The  tremendous  storm  of  the  French  Revolution  was  about 
to  break  and  to  sweep  away  the  church,  with  the  nobility,  the 
throne,  and  kindred  ancient  institutions.  The  Revolutionary 
leaders  were  filled  with  the  rationalistic  spirit.  They  viewed 
the  churches  as  religious  clubs.  In  1789  church  lands  were 
declared  national  property.  In  1790  the  monasteries  were 
abolished.  The  same  year  the  civil  constitution  of  the  clergy 
overthrew  the  old  ecclesiastical  divisions,  made  each  "depart 
ment"  a  bishopric,  and  provided  for  the  election  of  all  priests 
by  the  legal  voters  of  their  communities.  The  constitution  of 
1791  pledged  complete  religious  freedom.  In  1793  the  Jacobin 
leaders  procured  the  abolition  of  Christianity.  Hundreds  of 
ecclesiastics  were  beheaded.  After  the  "terror"  was  over,  in 
1795,  religious  freedom  was  once  more  proclaimed,  though  the 
state,  as  such,  was  to  be  without  religion.  It  was,  in  real 
ity,  strongly  antichristian.  This  situation  was  extended  by 
French  conquests  to  the  Netherlands,  northern  Italy,  and  Swit 
zerland.  In  1798  Rome  was  made  a  republic  by  French  arms, 
and  Pope  Pius  VI  (1775-1799)  carried  a  prisoner  to  France, 
where  he  died. 

The  military  events  of  1800  led  to  the  election  of  Pius  VII 
(1800-1823)  and  the  restoration  of  the  States  of  the  Church. 
Napoleon,  on  attaining  power,  though  himself  without  religious 
feeling,  recognized  that  a  majority  of  the  French  people  were 
Roman  Catholics,  and  that  the  church  might  be  used  by  him. 
The  result  was  the  Concordat  with  the  papacy  in  1801  and 
the  Organic  Articles  of  1802.  By  the  former,  the  church  sur 
rendered  all  confiscated  lands  not  still  held  by  the  government. 
Those  in  government  possession  were  restored  to  it.  Appoint- 


NAPOLEON  AND  THE  CHURCH  559 

ment  of  bishops  and  archbishops  were  to  be  by  the  Pope  on 
nomination  by  the  state.  Lower  clergy  were  appointed  by 
bishops,  but  the  state  had  a  veto  power.  Clergy  were  to  be 
paid  from  the  state  treasury.  By  the  Organic  Articles  no  papal 
decrees  were  to  be  published  or  French  synods  held  without 
governmental  allowance.  To  Protestants  full  religious  rights 
were  accorded,  at  the  same  time,  and  the  pay  of  their  minis 
ters  and  control  of  their  affairs  assumed  by  the  state.  Napoleon 
soon  quarrelled  with  Pius  VII,  annexed  the  States  of  the  Church 
in  1809,  and  held  the  Pope  a  prisoner  from  that  time  till  1814. 
Napoleon's  Concordat  was  to  rule  the  relations  of  France  and 
the  papacy  for  more  than  a  century.  Intended  to  place  the 
French  Catholic  Church  under  the  control  of  the  government, 
and  accomplishing  that  result  under  Napoleon,  its  real  effect 
was  to  make  the  French  clergy  look  to  the  Pope  as  their  sole 
aid  against  the  state.  By  ignoring  all  ancient  local  rights,  it 
really  ruined  all  Gallican  claims  to  partial  freedom,  and  opened 
the  door  to  that  Ultramontane  spirit  characteristic  of  French 
Catholicism  throughout  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  wars  of  the  republican  and  Napoleonic  periods  resulted 
in  far-reaching  changes  in  Germany.  The  old  ecclesiastical 
territories  practically  ceased  to  exist  in  1803,  and  were  divided 
between  the  secular  states.  In  1806  Francis  II  (1792-1835) 
resigned  the  title  Holy  Roman  Emperor.  He  had  already  as 
sumed  that  of  Emperor  of  Austria.  It  was  the  passing  of  a 
venerable  institution,  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  which  had, 
indeed,  been  long  but  a  shadow,  but  which  was  bound  up  with 
medieval  memories  of  the  relations  of  church  and  state. 

Napoleon's  downfall  was  followed  by  universal  reaction. 
The  old  seemed  of  value  by  its  antiquity.  It  was  to  be  years 
before  the  real  progress  effected  by  the  Revolutionary  age  was 
to  be  manifest.  This  reaction  was  aided  by  the  rise  of  Roman 
ticism  with  its  new  appreciation  of  the  mediaeval  and  rejection 
of  that  spirit  of  the  eighteenth  century  which  had  been  dominant 
in  the  Revolution.  The  papacy  profited  by  all  these  impulses 
and  soon  developed  a  strength  greater  than  it  had  shown  for  a 
hundred  years.  A  characteristic  evidence  of  this  new  position 
of  the  papacy  was  the  restoration,  by  Pius  VII,  in  August,  1814, 
of  the  Jesuits,  who  speedily  regained  their  old  ascendancy  in 
papal  counsels,  and  their  wide  extended  activities,  though  not 
their  former  political  power.  They  have,  in  turn,  been  fore- 


560  UTRAMONTANISM.    PIUS  IX 

most  in  the  development  and  support  of  papal  authority.  At 
the  same  time  the  restoration  of  the  power  of  the  Roman 
Church  was  accompanied  and  made  possible  by  a  real  revival 
of  piety  that  has  continued  to  characterize  it  to  the  present 
day. 

Roman  development  during  the  nineteenth  century  has 
been  in  the  direction  of  the  assertion  of  papal  supremacy,  that 
called  Utramontanism — i.  e.,  beyond  the  mountains  from  the 
point  of  view  of  northern  and  western  Europe — that  is  Italian. 
To  this  Ultramontane  tendency  to  exalt  the  papacy  above  all 
national  or  local  ecclesiasticism  the  Jesuits  have  powerfully 
contributed.  Pius  VIFs  successor,  Leo  XII  (1823-1829),  was 
reactionary,  condemning,  like  his  predecessor,  the  work  of 
Bible  societies.  Gregory  XVI  (1831-1846)  was  a  patron  of 
learning,  but  reactionary  toward  modern  social  and  political 
ideals.  This  essentially  mediaeval  outlook  and  refusal  to  make 
terms  with  the  modern  world  led  to  the  formation,  in  the  first 
half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  of  clerical  and  anticlerical 
parties  in  Catholic  countries,  whose  contests  have  largely  de 
termined  the  politics  of  those  lands  to  the  present. 

The  Ultramontane  tendencies  found  their  conspicuous  illus 
tration  in  the  papacy  of  Pius  IX  (1846-1878).  Beginning  his 
pontificate  at  a  time  when  the  States  of  the  Church  were  on 
the  edge  of  revolt  because  the  leading  political  offices  were  held 
by  the  clergy,  he  was  at  first  a  political  reformer ;  but  the  task 
proved  too  much  for  him  and  he  adopted  a  reactionary  political 
policy  which  made  it  necessary  to  seek  the  support  of  foreign 
soldiery  and  rendered  the  people  dissatisfied  with  his  political 
rule.  In  religion  he  was  sincerely  convinced  that  in  the  papacy 
is  a  divinely  appointed  institution  to  which  the  modern  world 
can  appeal  for  the  decision  of  its  vexed  religious  problems. 
He  desired  to  make  this  evident.  In  December,  1854,  after 
consultation  with  the  bishops  of  the  Roman  Church,  he  pro 
claimed  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin — that  is,  that 
Mary  shared  in  no  taint  of  original  sin.  The  question  had  been 
in  discussion  since  the  Middle  Ages,  though  the  balance  of 
Catholic  opinion  in  the  nineteenth  century  was  overwhelmingly 
in  favor  of  the  view  approved  by  the  Pope.  He  elevated  it, 
by  his  own  act,  into  a  necessary  dogma  of  faith. 

In  1864  a  Syllabus  of  Errors,  prepared  under  papal  auspices, 
condemned  many  things  which  most  Christians  oppose;  but 


THE  VATICAN  COUNCIL  561 

also  repudiated  much  which  is  the  foundation  of  modern  states, 
like  the  separation  of  church  and  state,  non-sectarian  schools, 
toleration  of  varieties  in  religion,  and  concluded  by  condemn 
ing  the  claim  that  "the  Roman  Pontiff  can  and  ought  to  rec 
oncile  himself  to,  and  agree  with,  progress,  liberalism,  and 
civilization  as  lately  introduced." 

The  crowning  event  of  Pius  IX's  pontificate  was  the  Vatican 
Council.  Opened  on  December  8,  1869,  with  a  remarkably 
large  attendance  from  all  over  the  Roman  world,  its  most  im 
portant  result  was  the  affirmation,  on  July  18,  1870,  of  the  doc 
trine  of  papal  infallibility  by  a  vote  of  five  hundred  and  thirty- 
three  to  two.  It  was  far  from  asserting  that  all  papal  utterances 
are  infallible.  To  be  so  the  Pope  must  expound,  in  his  official 
capacity,  "the  revelation  or  deposit  of  faith  delivered  through 
the  Apostles."  "The  Roman  pontiff,  when  he  speaks  ex 
cathedra,  that  is,  when  in  discharge  of  the  office  of  pastor  and 
doctor  of  all  Christians,  by  virtue  of  his  supreme  apostolic 
authority,  he  defines  a  doctrine  regarding  faith  or  morals  to 
be  held  by  the  universal  church,  by  the  divine  assistance  prom 
ised  to  him  in  blessed  Peter,  is  possessed  of  that  infallibility 
with  which  the  divine  Redeemer  willed  that  His  church  should 
be  endowed."  Thus  the  Vatican  Council  sealed  the  triumph 
of  Ultramontanism.  It  was  the  completion  of  the  absolute 
papal  monarchy,  and  the  overthrow  of  that  doctrine  of  the 
supremacy  of  a  general  council  which  had  loomed  so  large  in 
the  fifteenth  century  (ante,  pp.  306-312),  and  had  not  been 
without  its  representatives  since. 

Though  undoubtedly  the  logical  outcome  of  centuries  of 
papal  development,  this  doctrinal  definition  encountered  con 
siderable  opposition,  especially  in  Germany.  The  most  emi 
nent  refuser  of  conformity  was  the  distinguished  Munich  his 
torian,  Johann  Joseph  Ignaz  von  Dollinger  (1799-1890),  but 
though  excommunicated,  he  declined  to  initiate  a  schism. 
What  he  refused,  others  achieved,  and  the  result  was  the  organ 
ization  of  the  Old  Catholics,  who  received  episcopal  ordina 
tion  from  the  Jansenist  Church  of  Utrecht  (ante,  p.  557). 
Their  chief  spread  has  been  in  Germany,  Switzerland,  and 
Austria,  where  they  number  still  more  than  a  hundred  thou 
sand  adherents.  They  have  even,  though  very  feebly,  reached 
the  United  States.  Yet  the  Old  Catholic  movement  would 
seem  to  have  little  future.  Its  departures  from  Rome,  though 


562         LOSS  OF  TEMPORAL  SOVEREIGNTY 

important,  were  not  vital  enough  to  serve  as  a  long- continuing 
basis  of  a  branch  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Meanwhile  the  tide  of  Italian  national  unity  had  been  rising. 
The  war  carried  on  jointly  by  the  kingdom  of  Sardinia,  under 
Victor  Emmanuel  II  (1849-1878),  and  France,  under  Napoleon 
III  (1852-1870),  against  Austria,  supplemented  by  Italian  en 
thusiasm  led  by  Giuseppe  Garibaldi  (1807-1882),  resulted  in 
the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  Italy  under  Victor  Em 
manuel  in  1861,  and  the  inclusion  in  it  of  the  greater  part  of 
the  old  States  of  the  Church.  Rome  and  its  vicinity  were 
preserved  to  the  Pope  by  the  Ultramontane  policy  of  Napoleon 
III.  On  the  outbreak  of  the  war  between  France  and  Ger 
many  in  1870,  the  French  troops  were  withdrawn.  On  Septem 
ber  20,  1870,  Victor  Emmanuel  captured  Rome,  and  the  in 
habitants  of  the  district  voted  one  hundred  and  thirty-three 
thousand  to  one  thousand  five  hundred  for  annexation  to  Italy. 
To  the  Pope  the  Italian  Government  guaranteed  the  privileges 
of  a  sovereign,  and  absolute  possession  of  the  Vatican,  the 
Lateran,  and  Castel  Gandolfo.  Thus  came  to  an  end  the  States 
of  the  Church,  the  oldest  continuous  secular  sovereignty  then 
existing  in  Europe.  Pius  IX  protested,  declared  himself  a 
prisoner,  and  excommunicated  Victor  Emmanuel.  The  papacy 
has  continued  to  desire  the  restoration  of  its  temporal  posses 
sions;  but  to  a  non-Roman  this  sacrifice  seems  to  have  been 
an  advantage.  It  removed  from  the  papacy  a  secular  task 
which  it  was  ill  adapted  to  meet,  and  the  attempted  accom 
plishment  of  which  laid  it  open  to  well-grounded  charges  of 
maladministration.  It  gave  to  the  papacy  unhindered  scope 
for  the  development  of  its  spiritual  functions.  It  is  no  acci 
dent  that  in  the  forty-seven  years  that  have  elapsed  since  the 
loss  of  its  territorial  possessions  the  papacy  has  been  more  in 
fluential  and  has  enjoyed  the  general  respect  of  mankind  in 
higher  measure  than  at  any  period  since  before  the  Reformation. 

Pius  IX  was  succeeded  by  a  statesman  Pope,  Leo  XIII  (1878- 
1903).  He  concluded  the  conflicts  between  the  papacy  and  the 
imperial  government  of  Germany.  He  urged  French  Catholics 
to  support  the  republic.  With  Italy  he  was  less  successful, 
owing  to  insistence  on  the  restoration  of  the  States  of  the  Church. 
He  declared  Aquinas  (ante,  p.  270)  the  standard  of  Roman  in 
struction,  thus  returning  to  the  best  period  of  mediaeval  re 
ligious  thought.  He  urged  the  study  of  the  Scriptures.  He 


SEPARATION  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE       563 

opened  the  treasures  of  the  Vatican  to  historical  scholars. 
The  relations  of  labor  and  capital  and  the  interests  of  working 
men  enlisted  his  attention.  He  sought  the  reunion  of  the 
Roman  and  the  Oriental  Churches ;  but  he  pronounced  Anglican 
orders  invalid  in  1896.  In  1878  he  restored  the  Roman  Catholic 
episcopate  in  Scotland.  A  man  of  scholarly  tastes  and  wide 
sympathies,  he  was  far  removed  from  any  countenance  of 
Protestantism,  but  won  deserved  admiration  for  the  skill, 
wisdom,  Christian  zeal,  and  religious  earnestness  with  which 
he  administered  his  great  office. 

Pius  X  (1903-1914)  was,  in  many  ways,  a  contrast  to  Leo 
XIII.  The  latter  was  of  noble  birth.  Pius  X  was  of  humble 
origin.  Leo  XIII  was  of  great  diplomatic  ability  and  far- 
sighted  vision.  Pius  X  was  a  faithful  parish  priest  whose  par 
ish  had  become  world-wide.  He  was  called  to  handle  two  ques 
tions  of  great  difficulty.  The  first  had  to  do  with  the  relations 
of  church  and  state  in  France.  In  spite  of  the  efforts  of  Leo 
XIII,  the  majority  of  French  Catholics  were  regarded  as  luke 
warm  toward  the  republic.  Relations  had  long  been  growing 
strained.  In  1901  religious  orders  not  under  state  control  were 
forbidden  to  engage  in  instruction.  The  refusal  of  conform 
ity  by  some  was  followed  in  1903  by  the  suppression  of  many 
monasteries  and  nunneries,  and  the  confiscation  of  their  prop 
erties.  In  1904  President  Loubet  of  France  paid  a  state  visit 
in  Rome  to  the  King  of  Italy.  Pius  X,  regarding  the  Italian 
sovereign  as  in  wrongful  possession  of  Rome,  protested.  France 
withdrew  its  ambassador  from  the  papal  court,  and  soon  after 
broke  off  all  diplomatic  intercourse.  In  December,  1905,  the 
French  Government  decreed  the  separation  of  church  and  state. 
All  governmental  aid  was  withdrawn  from  Catholics  and  Protes 
tants.  All  churches  and  other  church  property  were  declared 
the  possession  of  the  state,  to  be  rented  for  use  by  state-respon 
sible  local  associations  for  worship,  preference  being  given  to 
those  representative  of  the  faith  by  which  the  property  had 
last  been  employed.  Though  many  French  bishops  were  ready 
to  form  such  organizations,  Pius  X  forbade.  The  result  was  a 
deadlock,  which  still  continues,  though  the  French  Government 
has  allowed  worship  to  go  on  as  before.  Catholics  and  Protes 
tants  have  since  had  to  provide  the  cost  of  their  services  by 
voluntary  gifts.  The  adjustment  has  been  difficult;  but  the 
task,  which  has  been  successfully  accomplished,  seems  by  its 


564  MODERNISM 

perplexities  to  have  served  to  arouse  the  religious  interest  of 
the  nation. 

The  second  problem  was  occasioned  by  the  rise  of  the  Mod 
ernists.  In  spite  of  growing  Ultramontanism,  modern  histor 
ical  criticism,  Biblical  investigation,  and  scientific  conceptions 
of  growth  through  development,  have  found  a  foothold,  though 
scanty,  in  the  Roman  communion.  To  some  earnest  and 
thoughtful  men  some  reinterpretation  of  Catholicism  in  terms 
of  the  modern  intellectual  world  seemed  imperative.  Such 
were  Hermann  Schell  (1850-1906)  in  Germany,  Alfred  Loisy 
(1857-)  in  France,  George  Tyrrell  (1861-1909)  in  England, 
and  quite  a  group  in  Italy.  Modernism  was  confined  to  no 
country.  Against  this  movement  Pius  X  set  his  face.  By  a 
"syllabus,"  and  an  "encyclica,"  in  1907,  Modernism  was  con 
demned,  and  stringent  measures  taken  for  its  repression. 
These  have  apparently  been  successful,  but  whether  such  ten 
dencies  can  be  permanently  crushed  only  the  future  can  de 
termine.  Pius  X  interested  himself  in  many  administrative 
reforms  with  effect. 

The  present  Pope,  Benedict  XV  (1914-),  is  of  scholarly  spirit 
and  peace-loving  nature,  but  the  brevity  of  his  pontificate  and 
the  overshadowing  interests  of  the  great  world  war  have,  as 
yet,  rendered  an  estimate  of  his  pontificate  difficult. 

SECTION  XVI.      AMERICAN  CHRISTIANITY 

American  Christianity  is  primarily  an  importation  from  the 
Old  World.  As  the  colonization  of  America  represented  many 
races  of  Europe,  so  the  various  types  of  European  Christianity 
were  reproduced  on  the  new  continent.  Where,  as  in  South 
and  Central  America,  the  immigration  was  of  a  single  race, 
imposing  its  civilization  on  the  natives,  a  single  type  of  Chris 
tianity — the  Roman  Catholic — is  dominant  to-day,  however 
extensively  its  control  may  have  been  contested  by  secularist 
influences.  Where,  as  in  North  America,  many  stocks  have 
contributed  to  the  population,  though  one  form  of  Christianity 
was  here  and  there  dominant  in  colonial  beginnings,  the  result 
has  been  great  variety  and  religious  freedom,  as  a  consequence 
of  necessary  mutual  toleration.  America  has  produced  cer 
tain  indigenous  religious  types,  but  they  have  been  relatively 
insignificant;  but  in  North  America,  where  contact  between 


ROMAN  MISSIONS  IN  AMERICA  565 

various  types  has  been  acute,  and  where  the  principle  of  inde 
pendence  from  state  control  has  been  dominant  for  more  than 
a  century,  there  had  been  much  modification  from  European 
forms,  especially  in  church  government — what  may  be  called 
an  Americanization. 

The  conversion  of  South  and  Central  America  was  largely 
the  work  of  the  monastic  orders,  strongly  supported  by  the 
Spanish  Government.  By  1508  the  Franciscans  were  laboring 
in  Venezuela.  By  1529  they  were  numerous  enough  to  hold  a 
provincial  synod  in  Mexico.  In  1535  they  had  constituted 
Peru  a  province.  Four  years  later  they  had  begun  work  in 
Argentina.  They  were  the  first  to  enter  Brazil.  By  1597  they 
had  founded  Christian  communities  in  what  is  now  part  of  the 
United  States — New  Mexico.  In  1700  they  were  in  Texas. 
Their  mission  period  in  California  was  from  1769  to  1843. 

The  Franciscans  found  worthy  competitors  in  the  Domini 
cans.  By  1526  they  were  in  Mexico.  Soon  after  they  were 
laboring  in  Colombia.  In  1541  they  were  Christian  pioneers 
in  Chile. 

Even  more  extensive  was  the  activity  of  the  Jesuits.  From 
1549  they  developed  an  extensive  work  in  Brazil.  Colombia 
soon  proved  one  of  their  most  successful  fields.  They  were  in 
Peru  by  1567,  and  in  Paraguay  by  1586.  In  the  country  last 
named,  in  1610,  they  established  their  much  discussed  pater 
nally  controlled  Indian  villages  (ante,  p.  430).  The  seven 
teenth  century  witnessed  their  extensive  activities  in  Ecuador, 
Bolivia,  and  Chile.  By  1572  they  began  a  great  work  in  Mexico. 
No  brighter  page  of  missionary  sacrifice  is  to  be  found  than 
that  written  by  the  Jesuits  in  Canada,  beginning  in  1611. 
Though  aided  by  other  orders,  the  strongly  Roman  province  of 
Quebec  is  their  monument  to  this  day.  In  1673  a  Jesuit  mis 
sionary,  Jacques  Marquette  (1637-1675),  discovered  the  Missis 
sippi.  A  series  of  mission  stations  through  the  Mississippi 
valley,  as  far  south  as  Louisiana,  followed. 

Florida  was  missionary  land  for  Dominicans,  Franciscans, 
and  Jesuits  from  1568,  but  proved  difficult.  The  flourishing 
period  of  Roman  missions  there  was  from  1625  to  1700. 

Universities  were  founded  in  Mexico  City  in  1551,  and  in 
Lima  in  1557,  which  are  the  most  venerable  institutions  of 
higher  learning  in  the  New  World. 

The  Church  of  England  was  introduced  into  the  oldest  Eng- 


566     VIRGINIA,  MARYLAND,  THE  CAROLINAS 

lish  colony  in  what  is  now  the  United  States — that  of  Virginia — 
at  its  planting  in  1607,  and  remained  established  by  law  till 
1776.  Though  it  retained  the  affections  of  many  of  the  noblest 
of  the  colonists,  even  the  establishment  of  William  and  Mary 
College,  in  1693,  failed  to  provide  an  adequate  supply  of  native 
clergy.  Throughout  the  colonial  period  Virginia  was  dependent 
on  clerical  appointments  by  the  distant  bishop  of  London. 
The  result  was  too  often  the  selection  of  the  incompetent  and 
sometimes  of  the  unworthy,  while  the  parishes  which  were 
bound  by  law  to  furnish  the  minister's  support  revenged  them 
selves  by  a  grudging  acquiescence.  The  attempts  of  the  clergy 
to  collect  their  dues  by  law,  supported  by  the  home  government, 
was  one  of  the  causes  of  disaffection  leading  to  the  Revolution. 
On  the  whole,  Virginia  episcopacy,  in  colonial  days,  led  a 
troubled  and  scantily  fruitful  existence. 

Virginia's  northern  neighbor,  Maryland,  the  first  English 
proprietary  colony  in  what  is  now  the  United  States,  was 
chartered  to  Lord  Baltimore  in  1632.  Himself  a  Roman 
Catholic,  to  secure  freedom  under  the  sovereignty  of  England 
for  his  fellow  believers,  Baltimore  established  full  religious 
toleration.  Under  these  conditions  the  Protestant  Dissenters 
in  Maryland,  by  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  outnum 
bered  the  Roman  Catholics  and  Anglicans.  In  1691  Maryland 
was  created  a  royal  colony,  and  the  next  year  the  Church  of 
England  was  by  law  established.  During  the  remainder  of 
the  colonial  period  its  livings  were  the  most  valuable  of  any  in 
the  colonies ;  but  it  suffered  from  the  inefficiency  of  the  clergy, 
like  Virginia.  Quakers,  Presbyterians,  and  Methodists  grew 
numerous.  The  establishment  practically  ended  in  the  tur 
moil  of  the  Revolution.  A  bright  spot  in  the  religious  history 
of  these  two  colonies  was  the  efficient  labor  of  Thomas  Bray 
(1656-1730),  commissary  of  the  bishop  of  London,  who  secured 
the  foundation  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel 
in  Foreign  Parts  in  1701  (ante,  p.  508). 

North  and  South  Carolina  both  saw  the  Church  of  England 
legally  established  till  the  contests  of  the  Revolution.  The 
mixed  religious  character  of  their  population,  including  Hugue 
nots,  Scotch-Irish  Presbyterians,  Baptists,  and  Quakers,  ren 
dered  this  establishment  ineffective,  though  these  colonies  were 
well  served,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  by  missionaries  of  the 
society  founded  by  Bray,  and  Charleston  had  a  distinguished 


NEW  ENGLAND  CONGREGATIONALISM      567 

succession  of  rectors.  Georgia  was  founded  on  the  basis  of 
toleration  for  all  save  Roman  Catholics ;  but  not  a  little  work 
was  done  by  the  missionaries  of  the  Society  for  the  Propaga 
tion  of  the  Gospel,  and  something  has  been  said  of  the  experi 
ences  of  the  Wesleys  and  of  Whitefield  (ante,  pp.  511,  512). 
In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  in  the  southern  colonies  in  the 
period  preceding  the  Revolution  the  condition  of  religion  was 
low,  and  the  existence  of  an  establishment  did  little  to  improve  it. 
The  settlement  of  English  Separatists  and  Puritans  in  New 
England,  beginning  in  1620,  and  the  steps  which  led  to  the 
erection,  between  then  and  1638,  of  the  Congregational  colonies 
of  Plymouth,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  New  Haven 
have  already  been  noted  (ante,  pp.  466,  469).  Founded  in  re 
ligious  enthusiasm,  possessing  an  educated  ministry,  these 
colonies  made  provision  for  its  maintenance  from  their  own 
sons  by  the  founding  of  Harvard  College  in  1636  and  of  Yale 
College  in  1701.  Nor  was  effort  neglected  for  the  conversion 
of  the  Indians.  The  work  of  John  Eliot  (1604-1690),  begun 
in  1646,  led  to  the  formation,  in  1649,  of  the  first  missionary 
society  in  England  (ante,  p.  522).  The  early  Congregational- 
ists  of  New  England  did  not  differ  theologically  from  their 
Puritan  and  Presbyterian  brethren  in  Great  Britain.  For  their 
first  century  their  controversies  were  regarding  the  develop 
ments  of  polity  rather  than  concerning  questions  of  doctrine. 
By  1631,  in  Massachusetts,  and  speedily  in  the  other  adjacent 
colonies  Congregationalism  was  established  by  law.  A  religious 
establishment  there  continued  longer  than  elsewhere  in  the 
United  States,  in  Connecticut  till  1818,  and  in  Massachusetts 
till  1834.  Dissent  from  the  established  order  appeared. 
There  were  occasional  Baptists  in  the  Massachusetts  colony 
almost  from  the  beginning,  and  in  spite  of  governmental  re 
pression  they  organized  a  church  in  Boston  in  1665.  By  1705 
there  was  a  Baptist  Church  in  Groton,  in  Connecticut.  Quak 
ers  arrived  in  Massachusetts  in  1656,  and  within  the  next  five 
years  four  were  hanged  in  Boston.  They  continued,  however, 
to  increase.  Church  of  England  worship  was  established  in 
Boston,  in  1687,  and  gained  a  footing  at  Stratford,  in  Connecti 
cut,  in  1707.  Freedom  of  Protestant  worship  was  granted  by 
the  Massachusetts  charter  of  1691,  and  by  Connecticut  law  in 
1708,  and  exemption  from  taxation  for  the  support  of  Con 
gregational  Churches  was  granted  to  Baptists,  Episcopalians, 


568         BAPTISTS  AND  DUTCH  REFORMED 

and  Quakers,  under  somewhat  onerous  conditions,  in  both 
colonies,  between  1727  and  1729.  At  the  Yale  Commencement 
of  1722  the  rector,  or  president,  of  the  college,  Timothy  Cutler 
(1683-1765),  and  Samuel  Johnson  (1696-1772),  later  (1754)  to 
be  the  first  president  of  what  is  now  Columbia  University  in  New 
York  City,  with  one  of  the  tutors  at  Yale,  declared  for  epis 
copacy.  The  event  was  important,  not  in  the  college,  which 
deposed  them,  but  as  establishing  a  native  episcopal  ministry 
in  New  England,  especially  in  Connecticut,  where  its  labors 
were  supported  by  the  English  Society  for  the  Propagation  of 
the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts. 

In  general  it  may  be  said,  however,  that,  though  New  England 
remained  a  religious  land,  the  zeal  of  its  founders  had  burned 
low  by  the  opening  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  isolation, 
wars  with  the  Indians,  and  frontier  conditions  brought  their 
inevitable  provincialism. 

A  highly  individual  development  in  New  England  was  the 
settlement  of  Rhode  Island.  Providence  was  begun,  in  1636, 
by  Roger  Williams  (1604?-! 684?),  then  under  banishment  from 
Massachusetts  and  an  opponent  of  coercion  in  matters  of  re 
ligion.  Rhode  Island  became  a  refuge  for  those  seeking  free 
dom  of  religious  expression.  In  1639  the  first  Baptist  Church 
in  America  was  established,  of  which  Williams  was  for  a  short 
time  a  member,  spending  his  later  life  as  a  "seeker."  In  spite 
of  many  internal  troubles  from  an  intense  individualism,  the 
broad  principles  of  religious  toleration  on  which  Rhode  Island 
was  founded  were  well  and  honorably  maintained.  The 
Quakers,  in  particular,  found  in  it  a  home. 

New  York  was  permanently  founded  as  a  Dutch  trading 
colony  in  1624.  By  1628  its  first  Dutch  Reformed  Church, 
the  earliest  representative  of  the  Presbyterian  polity  in  America, 
was  formed.  New  York  soon  asserted,  however,  its  cosmopoli 
tan  character.  By  1644  the  future  city  included  in  its  inhabi 
tants  Dutch  Reformed,  Lutherans,  Mennonites,  English- 
speaking  Puritans,  and  Roman  Catholics.  From  1652  onward 
an  attempt  was  made  by  the  colonial  authorities  to  prevent 
any  other  worship  than  that  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Hol 
land.  The  Quakers  were  specially  objects  of  repression.  Dutch 
control  ceased  in  1664,  when  New  York  passed  to  the  English, 
whose  possession  was  finally  confirmed  ten  years  later.  The 
English  governors  attempted  to  construe  the  Church  of  Eng- 


QUAKERS  AND  PRESBYTERIANS  569 

land  as  established.  The  majority  of  inhabitants,  especially 
as  represented  in  the  legislative  assembly,  offered  successful 
opposition.  In  the  foundation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  1697,  the 
Church  of  England  was  effectively  planted  in  New  York  City, 
though  the  Dutch  Reformed  and  French  Huguenots  were  then 
even  more  strongly  represented.  In  1709  a  large  German  Re 
formed  immigration  from  the  Palatinate  came  into  the  colony. 
In  1720  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  received  a  notable  acces 
sion  in  the  arrival  from  Holland  of  Theodorus  Jacobus  Freling- 
huysen  (1691-1747),  whose  remarkable  ministry  was  exercised 
in  New  Jersey,  but  was  to  extend  its  quickening  and  organiz 
ing  influence  to  New  York  also. 

Of  what  was  to  become  New  Jersey,  East  Jersey  saw  the  es 
tablishment  of  Congregational  settlers  from  New  Haven  colony, 
at  Newark,  in  1666,  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  in  the  region  of 
New  Brunswick,  and  of  Scotch  Presbyterians.  West  Jersey 
received  a  large  Quaker  immigration  in  1677-1678. 

Mention  has  already  been  made  of  the  grant  of  Pennsylvania 
to  William  Penn,  in  1681,  and  its  settlement  by  Quakers  in  the 
following  year  (ante,  p.  480).  The  Quaker  policy  of  toleration 
attracted  representatives  of  other  forms  of  faith.  Hence  no 
other  colony  presented  such  a  variety  of  religious  bodies  as 
Pennsylvania.  Baptists  from  Wales  and  Ireland  were  soon 
more  strongly  represented  than  elsewhere  in  the  colonies. 
Mennonites  from  Germany  and  Holland  settled  German  town, 
in  1683.  Dunkards  and  other  German  bodies  soon  followed. 
The  Church  of  England  was  planted  in  Philadelphia  in  1695, 
but  was  long  feeble.  The  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century 
saw  a  great  influx  of  German  Lutherans  and  German  Reformed 
(Calvinists).  The  beginnings  of  the  Moravians  have  already 
been  noted  (ante,  p.  504). 

After  the  Stewart  restoration  of  1660  a  new  element,  des 
tined  to  be  of  great  economic  and  political  importance,  the 
Scotch-Irish,  came  from  the  Scottish  settlements  in  Ulster. 
They  were  devotedly  Presbyterian.  They  found  a  missionary 
and  an  organizer  in  Francis  Makemie  (?-1708),  who  labored, 
certainly  from  1691  onward,  from  New  York  to  South  Carolina. 
To  his  initiative  the  organization  of  the  first  American  pres 
bytery,  that  of  Philadelphia,  in  1705,  was  due.  From  1713 
nearly  to  the  American  Revolution  the  Scotch-Irish  were  pour 
ing  in  like  a  flood.  They  settled  much  of  Maine  and  New 


570  THE  GREAT  AWAKENING 

Hampshire  in  New  England,  where,  however,  they  were  mostly 
absorbed  by  the  Congregational  Churches.  In  New  York  they 
constituted  a  large  fraction  of  the  population.  Nowhere  were 
they  more  strongly  represented  than  in  Pennsylvania,  and  by 
1764  were  able  practically  to  wrest  the  political  control  of  the 
colony  from  the  Quakers.  They  sought  prevailingly  the  fron 
tier,  and  to  this  energetic  race  the  settlement  of  what  is  now 
West  Virginia,  western  North  Carolina,  and  ultimately  Ken 
tucky,  Tennessee,  as  well  as  large  sections  of  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  and  Alabama,  was  due.  By  1717  a  synod  was  formed, 
including  the  presbyteries  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  Penn 
sylvania,  Delaware,  and  Maryland.  In  general  the  Scotch- 
Irish  were  long  in  a  period  of  religious  destitution,  through  lack 
of  ministers  and  organized  churches. 

Religion  in  America  during  the  period  till  the  second  quarter 
of  the  eighteenth  century  was  essentially  the  propagation  of 
European  bodies.  Save  in  New  England,  it  was  relatively 
feeble,  and  there  had  suffered  a  serious  decline  of  its  original 
enthusiasm.  No  one  religious  body  was  dominant  in  the  col 
onies  as  a  whole.  While  particular  denominations  were  in 
trenched  in  particular  colonies,  no  church  could  become  that 
of  all  the  colonies.  The  way  was  thus  made  ready  for  that 
religious  freedom  which  was  to  become  the  characteristic  of 
the  United  States  as  a  nation. 

The  most  far-reaching  and  transforming  event  of  the  eight 
eenth-century  religious  life  of  America  was  the  revival  known 
as  the  Great  Awakening.  It  was  not  only  a  tremendous  quick 
ening  of  the  Christian  life,  it  changed  the  conceptions  of  en 
trance  on  that  life  in  a  way  that  profoundly  affects  the  majority 
of  American  churches  to  this  day.  In  this  respect  it  was  the 
analogue  of  Pietism  in  Germany  or  Methodism  in  Great  Britain. 
It  emphasized  the  conception  of  a  transforming  regenerative 
change,  a  "  conversion,"  as  the  normal  method  of  entrance  into 
the  kingdom  of  God.  It  gave  general  diffusion  to  the  Baptist 
or  Congregational  view  of  the  church  as  a  company  of  experi 
ential  Christians.  It  laid  little  weight  on  Christian  nurture. 
It  promoted  an  ascetic  theory  of  the  Christian  life. 

Some  premonitions  of  the  revival  were  to  be  seen  under  the 
preaching,  in  the  vicinity  of  Raritan,  New  Jersey,  of  Theodorus 
Jacobus  Frelinghuysen  after  1720  (ante,  p.  569).  He  had  come 
under  Pietistic  influences  in  Holland.  Near  him,  and  impressed 


THE  GREAT  AWAKENING  571 

by  him,  was  Gilbert  Tennent  (1703-1764),  the  young  Presby 
terian  minister  of  New  Brunswick,  New  Jersey,  whose  powerful, 
though  often  injudicious,  revival  preaching  began  to  show  large 
fruitage  in  1728.  A  remarkable  revival  began,  in  1734,  in  North 
ampton,  Massachusetts,  under  the  ministry  of  Jonathan  Ed 
wards  (1703-1758).  But  all  these  manifestations  of  religious 
feeling  were  local  compared  with  the  general  interest  aroused 
by  the  first  Evangelistic  tour  throughout  the  English-speaking 
colonies  in  1739  and  1740  by  George  Whitefield,  then  in  the 
height  of  his  youthful  enthusiasm  (ante,  p.  511).  Everywhere 
throngs  hung  upon  his  words,  faintings  and  outcries  attended 
his  sermons.  Hundreds  were  permanently  changed.  The  spiri 
tual  condition  of  many  communities  was  transformed. 

Unfortunately  the  Great  Awakening,  with  all  its  unquestion 
able  benefits,  brought  division  in  its  wake.  When  Whitefield 
himself  was  denunciatory  of  those  who  did  not  agree  with 
him  as  unconverted,  it  is  not  surprising  that  his  followers  and 
imitators  were  even  more  censorious  and  uncharitable.  The 
Congregationalists  of  New  England  were  soon  divided  into 
New  Lights,  who  saw  in  the  revivals  a  work  of  God,  and  the 
Old  Lights,  who  disliked  their  method.  A  similar  schism  into 
Old  Side  and  New  Side  occurred  among  the  Presbyterians  of 
the  middle  colonies.  Harvard  and  Yale  were  Old  Light  in  sen 
timent.  Many  of  the  revivalistic  ministers  of  the  New  Side 
party  had  been  trained  in  the  Log  College,  founded  in  1728  by 
Gilbert  Tennent's  father,  William  Tennent  (1673-1746).  Some 
of  these,  with  much  New  Light  sympathy  from  New  England, 
and  under  the  auspices  of  the  synod  of  New  York,  founded  in 
1746  the  institution  now  known  as  Princeton  University.  While 
the  revivals  affected  American  religious  ideals  profoundly,  two 
bodies,  which  had  always  emphasized  Christian  nurture,  were 
relatively  unaffected  by  them,  the  Lutherans  and  the  Church 
of  England — the  latter  proving,  in  New  England,  at  least,  a 
home  for  some  of  those  who  disapproved  the  revival  methods. 

Intense  as  was  the  Great  Awakening,  and  permanent  as 
was  its  moulding  effect  upon  American  religious  conceptions, 
its  active  period  was  brief.  Men's  minds  were  turned  from 
strenuous  interest  in  religion  by  a  long  series  of  military  and 
political  events  of  absorbing  concern.  The  struggle  begun  in 
1755,  resulting  in  the  conquest  of  Canada,  had  scarcely  ter 
minated  in  1763  when  it  was  followed  by  the  controversies 


572  JONATHAN  EDWARDS 

aroused  by  the  Stamp  Act,  and  by  increasing  friction  with  the 
mother  country,  resulting  in  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution 
in  1775 ;  the  Declaration  of  Independence  in  1776  ;  the  destruc 
tive  war  till  1783 ;  and  the  protracted  discussions  of  the  frame 
work  of  the  nation  which  did  not  terminate  till  the  establish 
ment  of  government  under  the  Constitution  in  1789.  For 
more  than  a  generation  men's  thoughts  were  absorbed  in  these 
questions,  and  religion  in  America  was  at  low  ebb.  Many  of 
the  trusted  political  leaders  were  influenced  by  the  Deism  of 
England  or  France  (ante,  p.  492).  The  most  significant  re 
ligious  force  arising  during  this  period  was  the  planting  of 
American  Methodism,  beginning  in  1766  (ante,  pp.  517-518) — 
a  sowing  destined  to  a  mighty  harvest. 

Out  of  the  discussions  of  the  Great  Awakening  there  emerged 
in  New  England  the  most  considerable  contribution  that 
eighteenth-century  America  had  to  make  to  theology — in 
the  work  of  Jonathan  Edwards  and  his  school.  Born  in  a 
pastor's  home  in  what  is  now  South  Windsor,  Connecticut,  in 
1703,  Edwards  graduated  at  Yale  in  1720.  From  1727  to  his 
dismissal,  after  a  painful  controversy,  in  1750,  he  was  pastor 
in  Northampton,  Massachusetts ;  then  missionary  to  the  Indians 
at  Stockbridge,  in  the  same  Commonwealth,  till  his  removal 
to  undertake  the  presidency  of  Princeton,  a  few  weeks  be 
fore  his  death  in  1758.  A  leader  in  the  great  revival,  his  was 
also  the  keenest  philosophical  intellect  that  colonial  America 
produced.  A  Calvinist,  emphasizing  the  absolute  divine  sov 
ereignty  in  conversion  against  all  Arminian  modifications,  in 
his  Enquiry  into  .  .  .  Freedom  of  Will  of  1754  he  held  that 
while  all  men  have  natural  ability  to  turn  to  God,  they  lack 
moral  ability — that  is,  the  inclination — so  to  do.  This  deter 
mining  inclination  is  the  transforming  gift  of  God ;  though  its 
absence  is  no  excuse  for  sin.  To  Edwards's  thinking  virtue  is 
love  to  intelligent  being  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  being 
each  possesses.  Hence  God,  the  greatest  of  all  beings,  justly 
seeks  His  own  glory,  while  man  by  the  same  test  must  place 
the  service  of  God  and  his  fellows  before  his  own  advantage. 
Sin  is,  therefore,  selfishness,  and  virtue  disinterested  benevo 
lence. 

Edwards's  views  were  developed  by  his  disciples,  Joseph 
Bellamy  (1719-1790),  Samuel  Hopkins  (1721-1803),  Timothy 
D wight  (1752-1817),  Edwards's  son  and  namesake,  Jonathan 


THEOLOGICAL  DEVELOPMENT  573 

(1745-1801),  and  Nathanael  Emmons  (1745-1840).  All  of 
these  insisted  on  a  conscious  conversion,  involving  a  trans 
formation  from  selfishness  to  "disinterested  benevolence,"  as 
the  method  of  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  To  Hop 
kins  this  "benevolence"  was  not  complete  in  self-sacrifice  un 
less  it  involved  a  willingness  to  be  damned,  should  that  seem 
best  to  divine  wisdom.  The  younger  Jonathan  Edwards, 
believing  that  Christ  died  for  all  and  not  for  the  elect  only, 
was  driven  by  the  rise  of  Universalism  to  substitute  the  Gro- 
tian  conception  of  Christ's  death  as  a  sacrifice  to  "general 
justice"  (ante,  p.  456),  rather  than  a  penal  satisfaction  for  in 
dividual  sins.  This  "governmental"  theory  of  the  atonement 
largely  dominated  New  England  thinking  till  after  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  This  Edwardean  school  was 
strongly  missionary  in  spirit,  and  from  it  most  of  the  early 
New  England  foreign  missionaries  came. 

Meanwhile  there  developed  in  eastern  Massachusetts,  under 
the  leadership  of  such  men  as  Charles  Chauncy  (1705-1787) 
and  Jonathan  Mayhew  (1720-1766),  both  of  Boston,  partly 
in  opposition  to  revival  methods,  and  also  through  the  in 
fluence  of  contemporaneous  English  Dissent,  a  "  liberal "  move 
ment  of  a  decidedly  Arian  tendency,  though  its  separation  and 
full  development  as  Unitarianism  was  not  to  come  till  the  be 
ginning  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  attainment  of  American  independence  thrust  upon  those 
religious  fellowships  that  had  heretofore  been  branches  of  Euro 
pean  communions  the  problem  of  separate  American  organiza 
tion.  In  the  condition  of  the  new  national  life  this  must  be 
organization  independent  of  the  state.  As  already  independent 
of  their  European  progenitors,  such  a  task  was  not  laid  upon  the 
Congregationalists  or  the  Presbyterians. 

The  Roman  Catholics  were  still  scantily  represented  within 
the  bounds  of  the  United  States.  They  were  under  the  su 
perintendence  of  the  vicar  apostolic  of  London.  In  1784  the 
much-respected  John  Carroll  (1735-1817)  of  Maryland  was  ap 
pointed  prefect  apostolic  for  the  United  States  by  Pius  VI 
(1775-1799).  Six  years  later  Carroll  was  consecrated  bishop 
of  Baltimore.  In  1791  the  first  Roman  Catholic  synod  of  the 
United  States  was  held  in  Baltimore.  In  1808  Baltimore,  under 
Carroll,  was  made  the  seat  of  an  archbishopric,  while  bishoprics 
were  established  in  New  York,  Boston,  Philadelphia,  and  Bards- 


574     THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

town  (Kentucky).  By  Carroll's  death  the  foundations  of  Ro 
man  Catholicism  in  the  United  States  had  been  strongly  estab 
lished,  and  the  priesthood  numbered  more  than  a  hundred, 
though  the  immigration  which  was  so  enormously  to  augment 
this  communion  was  yet  in  the  future. 

No  communion  in  America  suffered  so  severely  from  the  Revo 
lution  as  the  Church  of  England.  Its  ministry  and  congrega 
tions  were  largely  sympathetic  with  the  mother  country,  and  it 
emerged  from  the  struggle  in  ruins.  Its  very  name  seemed  un 
patriotic,  and  that  of  "Protestant  Episcopal'7  was  adopted  by 
a  conference  of  clergy  and  laity  of  Maryland  in  November, 
1780.  Two  years  later  William  White  (1748-1836),  rector  of 
Christ's  Church  in  Philadelphia,  and  a  hearty  supporter  of 
American  independence,  sketched  out  the  plan  under  which 
the  American  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  was  essentially  to 
be  organized,  in  independence  of  the  state  and  of  English 
ecclesiastical  control,  with  representative  bodies  composed  not 
only  of  clergy  but  of  laymen.  He  believed  the  prospect  of 
securing  an  American  episcopate  remote.  In  accordance  with 
White's  suggestions,  a  voluntary  convention,  representative 
of  eight  states,  met  in  New.  York  City  in  October,  1784,  and 
called  the  First  General  Convention  to  gather  in  Philadelphia 
in  September,  1785. 

Meanwhile,  the  Episcopal  clergy  of  Connecticut  had  held  aloof 
and  had  chosen  Samuel  Seabury  (1729-1796)  as  bishop,  and  he 
had  gone  to  England  for  ordination  in  June,  1783.  Finding  it 
impossible  to  receive  consecration  from  the  English  episcopate 
in  the  absence  of  action  by  Parliament,  Seabury  procured  it  at 
the  hands  of  the  Nonjuror  Scottish  bishops  in  Aberdeen  in 
November,  1784. 

The  General  Convention  of  1785  adopted  a  constitution  for 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  largely 
the  work  of  William  White.  It  also  appealed  to  the  English 
bishops  for  ths  ordination  of  bishops  for  America.  Seabury 's 
Scottish  ordination  might  be  valid,  but  the  derivation  of  orders 
from  the  parent  English  body  was  desired.  The  local  Epis 
copal  conventions  of  the  several  states  were  asked  to  name 
bishops.  The  General  Convention  reconvened  in  1786  was  able 
to  report  that  the  English  bishops  had  procured  an  enabling 
act  from  Parliament,  and  that  William  White  had  been  chosen 
bishop  of  Pennsylvania  and  Samuel  Provoost  (1742-1815)  of 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPACY.    LUTHERANS     575 

New  York.  On  February  4,  1787,  they  were  consecrated  by 
the  archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

Bishop  Seabury  and  Bishops  White  and  Provoost,  represent 
ing  different  lines  of  consecration,  looked  upon  each  other  at 
first  with  antagonism.  Connecticut  had  not  yet  been  rep 
resented  in  the  General  Convention ;  but  these  difficulties  were 
adjusted,  and  in  the  General  Convention  of  1789  all  parties 
united,  the  Prayer  Book  was  revised  and  adapted  to  American 
needs,  and  the  foundation  of  the  American  Protestant  Epis 
copal  Church  fully  laid. 

Separation  from  the  mother  country  made  a  similar  inde 
pendent  organization  for  American  Methodism  imperative. 
The  result  was  the  ordination  by  John  Wesley  in  September, 
1784,  of  Thomas  Coke,  Richard  Whatcoat,  and  Thomas  Vasey, 
for  work  in  America ;  the  Conference  in  Baltimore,  the  forma 
tion  of  a  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  and 
the  ordination  of  Francis  Asbury  the  same  year  (ante,  pp.  517, 
518). 

The  year  1792  saw  the  abandonment  by  the  (Dutch)  Re 
formed  Church,  and  1793  by  the  (German)  Reformed  Church, 
of  a  dependence  on  Holland  which  had  long  been  weakening, 
but  which  now  ended  in  complete  self-government. 

One  now  very  extensive  American  communion,  the  Lutheran, 
though  not  directly  affected  by  the  Revolutionary  struggle  to 
the  degree  characteristic  of  the  bodies  just  mentioned,  now  de 
veloped  its  organization  on  American  lines.  The  earlier  Ger 
man  immigration  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  prevailingly 
other  than  Lutheran.  By  the  middle  of  that  century  Luther- 
anism  was  pouring  in  a  flood,  especially  into  Pennsylvania, 
though  of  course  in  numbers  far  smaller  than  the  great  immigra 
tion  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Religiously,  the  transition  was 
difficult.  The  institutions  of  a  state  church  could  not  be  trans 
planted,  and  little  help  came  from  Germany,  save  from  the  Piet 
ists  of  Halle.  Great  disorganization  and  scarcity  of  ministers 
were  the  results.  Some  improvement  was  effected  by  Zinzen- 
dorf  (ante,  p.  505) ;  but  the  great  organizer  of  American  Luther- 
anism  was  Heinrich  Melchior  Miihlenberg  (1711-1787),  who 
reached  Philadelphia  in  1742.  Under  his  leadership  the  first 
Lutheran  synod,  or  ministerium,  was  formed  in  Philadelphia 
in  1748.  Quite  as  important  for  the  future  development  of 
American  Lutheran  polity  was  the  constitution  prepared  by 


576  LUTHERANS.    UNIVERSALISTS 

Miihlenberg  for  his  Philadelphia  congregation  in  1762,  by  which 
all  officers  were  chosen  by  the  congregation  itself.  The  two  es 
sential  features  of  American  Lutheranism  were  thus  sketched — 
Congregational  in  respect  to  the  local  congregation,  Presby 
terian  in  respect  to  the  standing  of  ministers  in  the  synod. 
The  synodical  system  spread  slowly.  The  ministerium  of  New 
York  was  organized  in  1786.  A  third  synod  was  soon  after 
formed  in  North  Carolina.  In  1821  a  general  synod,  intended 
to  be  representative  of  all  local  synods,  was  formed,  but  only 
a  portion  of  the  Lutherans  supported  it,  and  this  willingness  of 
the  rapidly  multiplying  local  synods  to  group  themselves  as 
they  choose  has  continued  till  recently  characteristic  of  Am 
erican  Lutheranism.  Steps  taken  in  connection  with  the  four 
hundredth  anniversary  of  the  Reformation,  in  1917,  promise 
the  union  of  all  American  Lutheran  bodies. 

One  further  religious  body  that  developed  during  the  period 
of  struggle  for  national  independence  was  that  of  the  Universal- 
ists.  Belief  in  the  salvation  of  all  occasionally  appeared  in 
eighteenth-century  America  as  elsewhere  as  a  sporadic  specu 
lation.  The  father  of  organized  Universalism  was  John  Mur 
ray  (1741-1815),  who  had  been  touched  by  Whitefield's  preach 
ing  in  his  native  England,  and  by  the  writings  of  James  Relly 
(1722?-!  778),  who  had  passed  from  the  status  of  one  of  White- 
field's  preachers  to  that  of  an  advocate  of  universal  salvation. 
It  was  as  a  disciple  of  Relly  that  Murray  came  to  America  in 
1770,  and  began  an  itinerating  ministry,  chiefly  in  New  Eng 
land.  A  strict  Calvinist,  Murray  believed  that  Christ  had 
made  full  payment  not  for  the  sins  of  a  restricted  group  of  the 
elect,  but  for  all  men,  and  immediate  blessedness  would  be 
theirs  at  the  judgment,  when  all  unbelief  in  God's  mercy  would 
vanish.  For  those  who  fully  believe,  the  divine  promised  bless 
edness  begins  now. 

A  further  impulse  was  given  to  Universalism  when  in  1780 
Elhanan  Winchester  (1751-1797),  a  Baptist  minister  of  Phila 
delphia,  independently  of  Murray,  adopted  Universalist  views, 
which  he  advocated  with  eloquence.  Unlike  Murray,  his  gen 
eral  opinions  were  Arminian.  Salvation  is  based  on  the  ultimate 
free  submission  of  all  to  God ;  but  will  not  be  achieved  in  the 
case  of  the  unrepentant  till  their  spirits  have  been  purified  by 
protracted,  but  not  eternal,  suffering.  Even  more  influential 
was  Hosea  Ballou  (1771-1852),  long  a  pastor  in  Boston.  Mur- 


UNITARIANS  577 

ray  and  Winchester  had  been  Trinitarians.  Ballou  was  an 
Arian,  and  in  this  Unitarian  direction  American  Universalism 
has  followed  him.  The  purpose  of  the  atonement  was  moral— 
to  set  forth  God's  love  to  men.  Sin  brings  punishment,  here 
or  hereafter,  till  men  turn  from  it  to  God. 

By  1790  the  Universalists  were  sufficiently  numerous  to  hold 
a  convention  in  Philadelphia.  Three  years  later  a  New  Eng 
land  convention  was  organized  which  in  1803  met  in  Winches 
ter,  New  Hampshire,  and  adopted  a  brief  creed  which,  though 
modified  in  1900,  is  the  historic  basis  of  American  Universalism. 
The  early  converts  to  Universalism  were  prevailingly,  though 
not  always,  from  the  humbler  walks  of  life. 

Unitarianism,  on  the  other  hand,  won  the  allegiance  of  some 
of  the  oldest  Congregational  Churches  and  eminent  men  of  east 
ern  Massachusetts.  The  growth  of  a  "liberal"  party  before 
the  Revolution  has  already  been  noted  (ante,  p.  573).  Theo 
logical  discussion  in  that  region  was  overshadowed  by  the 
momentous  events  of  the  struggle  for  independence.  In  1785, 
however,  the  proprietors  of  King's  Chapel,  the  ancient  Church 
of  England  place  of  worship  in  Boston,  excluded  from  the 
Prayer  Book  all  references  to  the  Trinity,  thus  becoming  the 
first  Unitarian  congregation  in  America.  Similar  views  spread, 
and  criticism  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  of  the  Calvinistic 
theory  of  predestination,  and  an  insistence  on  salvation  by 
character  were  even  more  characteristic  of  the  "liberal"  move 
ment  than  denial  of  the  Trinity.  With  the  incoming  of  the  re 
vival  impulse  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  of  which 
mention  will  soon  be  made,  and  the  consequent  strengthening 
of  the  conservative  element,  a  cleavage  was  soon  evident  be 
tween  the  "liberal"  and  "orthodox"  parties.  A  struggle  be 
tween  the  two  over  the  theology  of  the  Hollis  professor  of 
divinity  in  Harvard  University  resulted  in  1805  in  the  vic 
tory  of  the  "liberals"  by  the  choice  of  Henry  Ware  (1764-1845). 

Meanwhile,  in  1803,  William  Ellery  Channing  (1780-1842) 
had  begun  a  greatly  respected  and  widely  influential  pastorate 
in  Boston,  and  was  preaching  a  high  Arian  Christology. 
Increasing  division,  and  attacks  by  the  "orthodox,"  led  in 
1815  to  the  adoption  by  the  "liberals"  of  the  Unitarian  name. 
A  sermon  by  Channing  in  1819  at  the  installation  of  Jared 
Sparks  "(1789-1866)  in  Baltimore  was  widely  regarded  as  the 
authoritative  statement  of  the  party,  and  gave  to  Channing 


578  THE  GREAT  REVIVALS 

henceforth  an  unofficial  leadership  in  American  Unitarianism. 
In  1825  the  American  Unitarian  Association  was  formed. 
Though  largely  confined  to  eastern  New  England,  the  roll  of 
Unitarian  men  of  letters,  philanthropists,  and  public  servants 
is  of  eminent  distinction. 

The  periods  of  the  Revolutionary  contest  and  of  the  discus 
sions  resulting  in  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  were  epochs  of  great  religious  depression.  The 
last  decade  of  the  eighteenth  century  saw  a  marvellous  trans 
formation  initiated.  Without  the  aid  of  any  single  outstanding 
personality,  like  that  of  Whitefield  in  the  "Great  Awakening," 
a  mighty  reawakening  of  religious  interest  began.  Felt  in  New 
England  by  1792,  within  the  next  four  years  it  -was  strongly 
manifested  in  the  Middle  States,  whence  it  swept  through  the 
South,  and  by  the  dawn  of  the  nineteenth  century  was  in 'tri 
umphant  progress  in  the  new  West  beyond  the  Alleghanies. 
In  Kentucky  it  was  felt  with  peculiar  power.  There  the  "  camp- 
meeting"  began  in  1800 ;  and  there  the  revival  was  often  accom 
panied,  as  had  been  the  "Great  Awakening,"  by  outcries  and 
bodily  manifestations.  As  a  whole,  this  new  revival  period  was 
far  less  marked  than  the  earlier  by  these  symptoms  of  over 
wrought  excitement.  Its  effects  were  none  the  less  profound, 
and  the  new  religious  interest  was  long  continued  and  trans 
forming.  Indeed,  the  revivals  may  be  said  to  have  continued, 
with  less  frequency  and  diminishing  intensity  till  1858,  as  the 
predominant  feature  of  American  religious  life. 

Led  as  was  this  revival  movement,  on  its  human  side,  by 
men  who  fully  shared  the  Pietistic  and  Methodist  traditions 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  it  emphasized  the  relation  of  the 
individual  soul  to  God,  and  regarded  a  conscious  conversion 
as  the  normal  entrance  into  the  Christian  life.  It  was  dis 
posed  to  view  that  as  scarcely  religion  for  which  some  account 
of  a  transforming  change  in  feeling  could  not  be  given.  All 
American  religious  bodies  except  the  Roman  Catholics,  Luth 
erans,  Protestant  Episcopalians,  Quakers,  and  Unitarians 
shared  these  convictions.  Presbyterians  and  Congregational- 
ists,  Methodists  and  Baptists,  were  in  these  respects  essentially 
at  one.  But  the  Methodists  and  Baptists,  to  whom  this  type 
of  piety  was  "most  native,  found  the  largest  popular  following, 
aided  by  their  willingness  to  use  such  ministerial  instrumentali 
ties,  whether  educated  or  not,  as  were  available.  They  speedily 


MISSIONS.    MINISTERIAL  TRAINING         579 

reached  that  numerical  leadership  which  they  have  since  main 
tained  among  American  Protestants.  The  fidelity  of  Congre- 
gationalists  andf  Presbyterians  to  the  tradition  of  an  educated 
ministry  made  them  founders  of  schools  and  colleges,  but  ren 
dered  ttoeir  appeal  less  widely  popular ;  but  all  grew  amazingly 
in  numbers  and  power. 

Under  the  impulse  of  the  new  religious  spirit  American  Chris 
tian  life  blossomed  with  new  activities.  The  Sunday  school, 
first  introduced  from  England  (ante,  p.  522)  into  Philadelphia 
in  1791,  now  became  well-nigh  universal.  The  prayer-meeting, 
heretofore  only  sporadic,  became  general.  Foreign  missions, 
inaugurated  by  the  Congregationalists  in  1810,  by  the  formation 
of  the  American  Board,  with  which  the  Presbyterians  and 
(Dutch)  Reformed  co-operated,  were  adopted  by  the  Baptists 
through  the  establishment  of  the  General  Missionary  Conven 
tion  of  the  Baptist  Denomination  in  1814.  The  Methodists 
followed  with  their  Missionary  Society  in  1819.  The  Protes 
tant  Episcopal  Church  took  similar  action  in  1821.  Nor  was 
the  progress  of  home-missionary  effort  in  the  United  States 
less  remarkable.  The  circuit-rider  and  the  pastor  kept  pace 
with  the  progress  of  population  westward,  and  state  and  na 
tional  organizations  in  the  larger  denominational  bodies  ener 
getically  supported  the  work. 

Ministerial  training  was  greatly  stimulated  by  the  religious 
awakening.  A  prime  purpose  in  the  foundation  of  Harvard 
(1636),  Yale  (1701),  and  Princeton  (1746)  had  been  pastoral 
preparation.  The  ordinary  curriculum  had  at  first  been  deemed 
adequate,  but  it  was  supplemented  at  Harvard  by  the  founda 
tion  of  a  professorship  of  divinity  in  1721,  and  at  Yale  in  1755. 
More  popular  training  throughout  the  eighteenth  century  was 
instruction  in  the  home  of  some  active  pastor.  In  1784  the 
(Dutch)  Reformed  Church  instituted  ministerial  training  ulti 
mately  removed  to  New  Brunswick,  New  Jersey,  which  has 
often  been  called  the  oldest  American  theological  seminary. 
More  like  a  modern  theological  seminary  was  the  school  estab 
lished  in  Baltimore  in  1791  by  Bishop  John  Carroll,  with  the 
aid  of  French  Sulpitians,  for  training  for  the  Roman  Catholic 
priesthood.  The  United  Presbyterians  were  beginning  theolog 
ical  instruction  later  to  find  a  home  in  Xenia,  Ohio,  in  1794. 
In  1807  the  Moravians  established  a  theological  school  in  Naza 
reth,  Pennsylvania. 


580        THE  CUMBERLAND  PRESBYTERIANS 

The  most  elaborately  equipped  theological  seminary,  and  in 
many  ways  the  inaugurator  of  a  new  era,  was  that  opened  by 
the  Congregationalists  in  Andover,  Massachusetts,  in  1808. 
Four  years  later  the  Presbyterians  inaugurated  a  similar  semi 
nary  at  Princeton,  New  Jersey.  In  1815  a  Lutheran  theological 
school  was  established  in  Hartwick,  New  York.  The  Divinity 
School  of  Harvard  University  was  opened  under  Unitarian  aus 
pices  the  same  year.  Bangor  Theological  Seminary,  in  Maine, 
was  founded  by  Congregationalists  in  1816.  The  Baptists  in 
augurated  Hamilton  (New  York)  Theological  Seminary  in  1819. 
Two  years  later  the  Presbyterian  School  in  Auburn,  New  York, 
was  established,  and  in  1822  the  Congregationalists  opened  the 
Divinity  School  of  Yale  University.  These  institutions  for 
ministerial  training  multiplied  rapidly,  and  by  1860  had  in 
creased  to  fifty,  a  number  since  greatly  augmented.  The 
whole  character  of  pastoral  preparation  was  broadened,  deep 
ened,  and  systematized. 

Out  of  these  religious  awakenings  there  grew  many  divisions. 
One  such  of  importance  was  the  rise  of  the  Cumberland  Pres 
byterian  Church.  The  Cumberland  region  in  Tennessee  and 
Kentucky  was  powerfully  stirred  by  the  revival  in  1800. 
Churches  were  rapidly  multiplied,  and  in  1802  the  Cumberland 
Presbytery  was  formed.  The  need  of  preachers  was  great,  and 
the  presbytery  desired  ministerial  standing  for  some  earnest 
young  men  who  lacked  the  educational  qualifications  demanded 
by  Presbyterianism  generally.  The  revival  preaching  had  pro 
duced  a  conviction  that  the  doctrines  that  Christ  died  for  the 
elect  only,  and  that  any  portion  of  the  race  is  reprobate  save 
by  its  own  personal  acts,  were  hindrances  rather  than  helps. 
The  Kentucky  synod  viewed  these  departures  with  disfavor, 
and  in  1806  ordered  the  Cumberland  Presbytery  dissolved. 
In  1810  the  Cumberland  Presbytery  reconstituted  itself  as  an 
independent  body.  Its  growth  was  rapid.  In  1813  a  synod 
was  organized,  and  in  1816  it  took  the  name  Cumberland  Pres 
byterian  Church,  though  it  was  soon  represented  vastly  more 
widely  than  the  region  from  which  the  title  was  derived. 

The  older  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  worked  in 
harmony  in  home  missions  in  what  have  long  been  the  northern 
central  states  under  the  plan  of  union  formed  in  1801  by  the 
General  Association  of  Connecticut  and  the  Presbyterian 
General  Assembly,  till  it  was  repudiated  by  the  Old  School 


THE  DISCIPLES  581 

wing  of  the  Presbyterians  in  1837,  and  by  the  Congregational- 
ists  in  1852.  In  general,  however,  denominational  rivalries 
were  keen  and  controversy  bitter,  especially  in  the  extension 
work  of  the  developing  West. 

Out  of  an  earnest  conviction  of  the  evils  of  these  divisions  a 
movement  of  much  importance  grew.  Thomas  Campbell 
(1763-1854)  was  a  minister  of  the  Secession  Presbyterian 
Church  (ante,  p.  553)  of  the  north  of  Ireland,  who  came  to 
America  in  1807,  and  began  work  in  western  Pennsylvania. 
Here  his  freedom  in  welcoming  Presbyterians  of  all  parties  to 
communion  aroused  criticism,  and  he  was  disciplined  by  the 
Secession  Presbytery  of  Chartiers.  Campbell  felt  it  his  duty 
to  protest  against  such  sectarianism,  and  to  assert  as  the  stand 
ard  of  all  Christian  discipleship  the  literal  terms  of  the  Bible 
alone,  as  he  understood  it.  Thomas  Campbell  now  broke  with 
the  Secession  Presbyterians,  but  continued  to  labor  in  western 
Pennsylvania,  announcing  as  his  principle:  "Where  the  Scrip 
tures  speak,  we  speak ;  and  where  the  Scriptures  are  silent,  we 
are  silent."  It  was  not  a  new  denomination  that  he  planned, 
but  a  union  of  all  Christians  on  this  Biblical  basis,  without 
added  tests  of  creed  or  ritual.  In  August,  1809,  Thomas  Camp 
bell  organized  The  Christian  Association  of  Washington — 
so-called  from  the  Pennsylvania  county  of  its  origin — and  for 
it  he  prepared  the  "Declaration  and  Address"  which  has  since 
been  regarded  as  a  fundamental  document  of  what  was  to  be 
known  as  the  Disciples  movement.  The  same  year  Thomas 
Campbell's  son,  Alexander  (1786-1866),  emigrated  to  America, 
and  was  soon  to  outstrip  his  father  in  fame  as  an  advocate  of 
the  former's  views. 

In  spite  of  their  deprecation  of  sectarianism,  the  Campbells 
organized  a  church  in  Bush  Run,  Pennsylvania,  in  May,  1811. 
The  Lord's  Supper  was  observed  each  Sunday  from  the  begin 
ning.  But  doubts  now  arose  as  to  the  Scriptural  warrant  of 
infant  baptism.  In  1812  the  Campbells  and  a  number  of  their 
associates  were  immersed.  A  year  later  the  Bush  Run  church 
became  a  member  of  the  Redstone  Association  of  Baptist 
Churches.  Points  of  disagreement  with  the  Baptists  developed. 
The  Campbells  disliked  the  Baptists'  strenuous  Calvinism. 
To  the  Campbells  the  Old  Testament  was  far  less  authoritative 
than  the  New.  To  the  Baptists  baptism  was  a  privilege  of  the 
already  pardoned  sinner;  to  the  Campbells  it  was  a  condition 


582  ADVENTISTS.    MORMONS 

of  forgiveness.  Moreover,  the  Campbells,  without  being  in 
any  sense  Unitarians,  refused  to  employ  other  than  Scriptural 
expressions  regarding  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  The 
result  was  a  withdrawal  from  the  Baptists,  which  may  be  said 
to  have  been  completed  by  1827.  From  this  time  onward  the 
followers  of  the  Campbells  were  practically  a  denomination, 
known  popularly  as  Disciples  of  Christ.  They  are  Congrega 
tional  in  polity.  Their  growth  has  been  remarkable,  and  has 
constituted  the  Disciples  an  important  factor  in  American 
religious  life. 

A  peculiar  development  of  prophetical  interpretation  was 
that  of  William  Miller  (1782-1849),  a  Baptist  farmer  of  Low 
Hampton,  New  York.  From  1831  onward  he  preached  widely, 
asserting  on  the  basis  of  calculations  from  the  book  of  Daniel 
that  the  second  coming  and  the  inauguration  of  the  millennial 
reign  of  Christ  would  occur  in  1843-1844.  He  won  thousands 
of  followers.  In  spite  of  the  failure  of  his  prediction,  his  dis 
ciples  held  a  general  conference  of  Adventists,  as  they  styled 
themselves,  in  1845,  and  have  persisted  to  the  present,  some 
holding  to  the  observance  of  the  seventh  day.  Their  belief 
that  the  coming  of  Christ  is  near,  though  at  a  date  not  deter- 
minable,  is  widely  diffused  among  many  who  do  not  bear  the 
Adventist  name. 

A  remarkable  perversion  of  Christianity  is  Mormonism, 
founded  by  Joseph  Smith  (1805-1844),  who  claimed  to  have  dug 
up,  near  Manchester,  New  York,  in  1827,  a  volume  of  gold  plates, 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  supplementary  to  the  Bible,  written  in 
mysterious  characters  which  he  was  able  to  translate  by  means 
of  a  pair  of  magic  spectacles,  but  the  original  of  which  was 
removed  by  angelic  agency.  In  this  book  Smith  is  proclaimed 
a  prophet.  The  first  Mormon  Church  was  organized  in  1830, 
in  Fayette,  New  York.  It  was  soon  largely  recruited  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Kirtland,  Ohio.  Here  Brigham  Young  (1801- 
1877)  became  a  member.  In  1838  the  Mormon  leaders  removed 
to  Missouri,  and  in  1840  founded  Nauvoo,  Illinois.  In  spite 
of  the  monogamy  enjoined  by  the  Book  of  Mormon,  Smith 
claimed  to  have  received  a  revelation,  in  1843,  establishing 
polygamy.  Popular  hostility  led  to  his  murder  by  a  mob  the 
next  year.  The  church  now  came  under  the  leadership  of 
Brigham  Young,  an  organizer  and  leader  of  the  highest  ability. 
Under  him  the  Mormons  marched  to  Salt  Lake,  in  Utah,  and 


EFFORTS  FOR  SOCIAL  RIGHTEOUSNESS      583 

a  community  of  great  material  prosperity  was  inaugurated. 
After  protracted  conflict  with  the  United  States  Government, 
Wilford  Woodruff  (1807-1898),  then  head  of  the  Mormon 
Church,  declared  against  polygamy  in  1890.  ^ 

The  Mormons  have  been  indefatigable  missionaries,  and  their 
numbers  have  been  largely  recruited  from  Europe.  Their 
system  of  economic  and  social  supervision  has  been  remarkable 
and  has  produced  a  large  degree  of  material  prosperity.  They 
hold  that  God  was  revealed  as  Adam,  and  that  Christ,  Mo 
hammed,  Joseph  Smith,  and  Brigham  Young  were  also  manifes 
tations  of  deity.  By  these  divine  beings  souls  are  created,  for 
whom  the  faithful  should  provide  bodies.  At  their  deaths  the 
righteous  will  share  in  divinity.  Salvation  is  through  the 
atonement  of  Christ,  by  faith,  repentance,  and  baptism  by  im 
mersion;  though  baptism  by  proxy  is  of  avail  for  the  dead. 
Their  numbers  are  such  that  the  Mormons  bid  fair  long  to  be 
an  element  in  American  religious  life. 

The  religious  activity  of  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  cen 
tury  was  accompanied  by  efforts  for  social  righteousness.  The 
death  of  Alexander  Hamilton  by  the  hand  of  Aaron  Burr,  in 
1804,  led  to  a  wide-spread  and  largely  successful  attack  by  the 
religious  forces  on  duelling,  in  which  an  extensively  circulated 
sermon  by  Lyman  Beecher  (1775-1863)  was  of  much  influence. 

Temperance  aroused  the  efforts  of  the  Presbyterian  General 
Assembly  and  of  the  Congregational  Associations  of  Connecti 
cut  and  Massachusetts  in  1811.  Lyman  Beecher's  sermons 
against  drunkenness,  of  1813,  attracted  great  attention.  The 
American  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Temperance  was  formed 
in  1826.  The  result  was  a  great  and  permanent  change  in 
the  drinking  habits  of  professed  Christians  by  1830.  Effort 
then  turned  toward  a  promotion  of  temperance  among  those 
not  actively  of  the  church.  The  Washingtonian  movement  of 
1840  sought  the  reformation  of  drunkards.  Prohibition  by 
legislation  was  enacted  in  Maine  in  1846.  Its  history  has  been 
checkered,  but  legislative  prohibition  has  made  great  strides 
since  the  opening  of  the  twentieth  century  throughout  the 
United  States,  and  has  had  the  constantly  increasing  support 
of  the  actively  Christian  elements  of  American  population. 

Slavery  also  aroused  the  hostility  of  Christian  people,  North 
and  South,  from  the  dawn  of  the  nineteenth  century.  A  great 
change  came  over  the  Southern  attitude  soon  after  1830,  partly 


584  AN  AGE  OF  CONTROVERSIES 

by  reason  of  the  supposedly  industrial  necessity  of  the  system 
and  partly  through  resentment  by  reason  of  the  injudicious  at 
tacks  of  Northern  Abolitionists  on  the  character  of  all  slave 
holders.  The  question  thenceforth  was  to  be  profoundly 
divisive,  but  with  ever-increasing  sensitiveness  of  the  Northern 
religious  consciousness  to  the  evils  of  human  bondage. 

The  fourth  and  fifth  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century  were 
a  period  of  controversy  and  division.  The  Presbyterian  Church 
had  been  recruited  from  two  main  elements — the  descendants 
of  Scotch-Irish  parentage  and  those  of  New  England  ancestry. 
The  latter  were  inclined  to  greater  doctrinal  and  administrative 
freedom.  At  the  General  Assembly  of  1837  the  Presbyterian 
Church  was  rent  into  two  nearly  equal  bodies,  the  " Old  School" 
and  the  "New  School." 

Controversies  of  nearly  equal  intensity,  though  with  less 
divisive  results,  turmoiled  the  Congregationalists  of  New  Eng 
land.  Hartford  Theological  Seminary  was  founded  in  1834  to 
offset  the  supposed  errors  of  the  Yale  Divinity  School,  then 
under  the  leadership  of  Nathaniel  W.  Taylor  (1786-1858). 
Horace  Bushnell  (1802-1876),  of  Hartford,  Connecticut,  in 
fluenced  by  Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge  (ante,  p.  545),  attacked  the 
conception  of  Christian  doctrine  as  based  primarily  on  demon 
stration  to  the  intellect,  then  almost  universal  in  America, 
and  would  substitute  for  such  logical  proof  an  appeal  to  the 
witness  of  the  religious  feeling.  BushnelPs  most  influential  pub 
lication  was  his  Christian  Nurture,  of  1847,  in  which  he  urged 
the  quiet  unfolding  of  the  Christian  nature  of  the  child,  un 
der  appropriate  influences,  as  the  normal  method  of  entrance 
in  the  kingdom  of  God,  instead  of  the  struggling  conversion 
which  Pietist  and  Methodist  tradition  had  considered  the  only 
legitimate  experience. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  was  turmoiled  by  disputes 
between  the  high-church  and  Evangelical  parties. 

The  most  extensive  separations  were  caused,  however,  by 
the  contests  anticipatory  of  or  accompanying  the  Civil  War. 
Growing  antipathy  to  slavery  led  to  the  organization,  in  1843, 
of  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  Church  of  America  on  the  basis  of 
no  slaveowning  membership.  The  question  was  thus  in  the 
foreground  when  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  met  in  1844,  and  an  immediate  struggle  arose 
over  the  retention  of  a  slaveholding  bishop.  Northern  and 


DIVISIONS  OVER  SLAVERY  585 

Southern  sentiment  was  hopelessly  divided.  The  Conference 
adopted  a  report  permitting  the  division  of  the  church,  with 
the  result  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  was 
constituted,  in  1845. 

Contemporaneously  a  similar  division  separated  the  Bap 
tists  of  North  and  South.  The  Alabama  State  Convention  of 
Baptists  demanded,  in  1844,  that  the  Foreign  Mission  Board 
make  no  discrimination  against  slaveholders  in  missionary  ap 
pointments.  The  board  declared  that  it  would  take  no  action, 
implying  approval  of  slavery.  The  result  was  the  formation 
of  the  Southern  Baptist  Convention  in  1845  and  the  cleavage 
of  the  churches. 

The  rupture  of  the  Old  School  Presbyterian  body  and  the 
formation  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  South,  did  not  occur  till 
1861,  after  the  outbreak  of  the  war  between  the  states. 

These  divisions,  unhappily,  still  continue,  though  signs  are 
abundant  of  reunion  in  the  not  distant  future. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  was  divided  only  during 
the  Civil  War,  and  was  reunited  at  its  close. 

A  pleasing  illustration  of  an  opposite  tendency  was  the  re 
union,  after  much  effort,  of  the  Old  School  and  New  School 
Presbyterian  Churches  of  the  North,  voted  in  1869  and  com 
pleted  in  1870. 

The  last  great  revival,  nation-wide  in  its  scope,  occurred  in 
1858,  though  many  similar,  though  more  local,  movements 
have  been  felt  to  the  present.  Though  the  Pietist  conception 
of  religion  has  still  continued  predominant  in  American  Protes 
tantism,  Christian  nurture  has  won  increasing  allegiance, 
especially  among  Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians  since 
the  Civil  War,  and  has  greatly  favored  the  growth  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  which  has  always  championed 
it. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  grew  enormously  in  the  United 
States  throughout  the  nineteenth  century,  chiefly  through 
immigration  from  Ireland  and  southern  Germany,  and  since 
1890  from  Italy  and  eastern  Europe.  These  races  have  been 
prolific  in  their  new  home.  Bitter  Protestant  opposition  was 
encountered  between  1840  and  1860;  but  since  the  date  last 
named  relations  between  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics 
have  been  increasingly  tolerant.  The  Roman  Church  has  ac 
complished  an  enormous  task  of  building  churches,  parochial 


586  WOMAN'S  WORK 

schools,  convents,  hospitals,  and  institutions  of  higher  learn 
ing  through  the  gifts  and  sacrifices  of  a  relatively  scanty  finan 
cial  ability.  National  councils  have  been  held  in  1852,  1866, 
and  1884.  Long  under  the  superintendence  of  the  Congregatio 
de  Propaganda  Fide  in  Rome,  Pius  X  (1903-1914)  granted  to 
the  Roman  Church  in  the  United  States  in  1908  the  same  de 
gree  of  autonomy  enjoyed  in  European  lands. 

An  outstanding  feature  of  American  religious  life  since  the 
war  between  the  states  is  the  steady  increase  in  the  demand 
for  an  educated  ministry  in  those  bodies  which  formerly  laid 
little  stress  on  training.  This  demand  has  been  met  by  con 
stantly  increasing  provision,  and  the  older  theological  seminaries 
have  steadily  enlarged  their  facilities  by  augmented  faculties  and 
extension  of  the  curriculum. 

The  period  has  witnessed  an  ever-enlarging  recognition  of 
the  work  of  women  in  the  Protestant  Churches.  A  Woman's 
Board  of  Foreign  Missions  was  founded  among  the  Congrega- 
tionalists  in  1868.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  North, 
followed  in  1869 ;  the  Northern  Presbyterians  in  1870 ;  and  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  1871.  Similar  organizations 
for  home  and  foreign  missions  are  now  well-riigh  universal  in 
American  Protestantism.  Women  have  long  been  eligible  to 
the  representative  conventions  of  the  Baptist  and  Congrega 
tional  Churches.  They  won  the  right  of  election  to  the  Meth 
odist  Episcopal  General  Conference  in  1900.  They  have  been 
ordained  to  the  ministry  by  Baptists,  Congregationalists, 
Disciples,  Unitarians,  and  Universalists. 

The  last  half-century,  especially  the  last  twenty-five  years, 
has  witnessed  a  great  theological  change  in  American  Protes 
tantism,  the  exact  extent  of  which  it  is  difficult  to  estimate, 
so  silently  and  unequally  has  it  come.  Certain  outstanding 
evidences  have  attracted  wide  attention.  Such  were  the  con 
troversies  aroused  among  the  Congregationalists  by  the  "pro 
gressive  orthodoxy"  of  Andover  Theological  Seminary  between 
1885  and  1892.  Such  was  the  deposition  of  Professor  Charles 
Augustus  Briggs  (1841-1913)  by  the  Presbyterian  General  As 
sembly  in  1893.  These  tangible  evidences  have  been  few. 
Yet  even  in  bodies  officially  bound  by  confessional  statements 
of  the  Reformation  age,  the  characteristic  doctrines  are  pro 
claimed  with  little  of  their  ancient  satisfaction.  The  newer 
Biblical  criticism,  especially  of  Germany,  and  the  evolutionary 


RECENT  TENDENCIES  587 

view  of  development,  have  found  large  acceptance  in  many  of 
the  most  influential  schools  of  ministerial  training,  and  have 
wide  following'  among  the  ministry,  especially  in  the  northern 
and  eastern  portion  of  the  United  States. 

Equally  marked,  during  the  recent  period,  but  as  impossible 
of  exact  estimate,  has  been  the  growth  of  the  conviction  that 
the  message  of  the  Gospel  is  social.  Not  a  rescue  by  individual 
salvation  only,  but  the  establishment  of  a  reign  of  righteousness 
among  men,  has  become  increasingly  the  ideal.  Christian  out 
look,  without  ceasing  to  be  other-worldly,  has  become  this- 
worldly  also.  Emphasis  is  placed  on  service  in  preventative 
and  reformatory  effort.  The  duty  of  the  church  to  share  in 
civic  betterment  is  emphasized.  A  great  enlargement  has 
come  in  the  conception  of  the  church's  mission.  Adjustment 
has  been  awkward  and  has  been  but  partially  accomplished, 
since  the  organization  of  the  churches  has  been  adapted  to  the 
older  and  more  limited  vision.  To  find  organs  for  the  work  of 
the  new  has  not  been  easy.  This  difficulty  has  led  to  a  large 
relinquishment  to  secular  organizations,  manned,  indeed,  chiefly 
by  members  of  the  churches  and  infused  with  the  spirit  of 
Christian  helpfulness,  of  much  social  service  with  which  the 
church  should  have  a  more  direct  relation.  The  sense  of  obli 
gation  in  the  churches  is  undeniably  rapidly  augmenting.  A 
patent  evidence  was  seen  at  the  outbreak  of  the  world  war,  in 
1914,  when  the  question  was  widely  asked  whether  that  catas 
trophe  did  not  demonstrate  the  failure  of  Christianity.  The 
question  implies  a  vastly  altered  vision.  To  the  thought  of  a 
century  earlier  the  war  would  have  been  but  another  evidence 
of  a  world  lying  in  wickedness,  from  which  individuals  might 
be  rescued  by  the  Gospel.  To  those  who  asked  it  the  Gospel 
implied  a  transforming  power  for  righteousness  which  ought 
to  banish  war  and  kindred  evils  from  mankind  in  this  present 
world.  The  same  enlargement  of  conception  of  the  scope  of 
Christianity  is  evident  on  the  mission  field.  The  feeling  animat 
ing  early  American  missionaries  was  that  their  task  was  to  save 
a  few  individuals  of  the  millions  of  hopelessly  lost  from  their 
eternal  doom.  As  recently  as  thirty  years  ago  the  proclama 
tion  of  any  other  conception  was  widely  declared  to  "cut  the 
nerve  of  missions."  The  aim  of  missions  has  not  been  so  much 
changed  as  immensely  enlarged.  The  missionary  seeks  neces 
sarily  individual  converts,  but  he  strives,  as  his  larger  work, 


588  CO-OPERATION 

to  plant  Christian  civilization,  to  sweep  away  hoary  supersti 
tions  and  oppressions,  and  to  foster  a  native  Christianity  which 
may  be  a  transforming  force  to  whole  peoples.  Never  have 
gifts  to  missions  been  larger  or  missionary  candidates  more 
numerous  than  they  now  are. 

An  outstanding  feature  of  the  existing  religious  situation 
in  the  United  States  and  Canada  is  the  decline  of  denomina 
tional  rivalries,  and  the  increase  of  co-operation  in  religious 
work.  Voluntary  associations  for  co-operate  Christian  en 
deavor  have  developed  remarkably.  Conspicuous  have  been 
the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  founded  by  George 
Williams  (1821-1905)  in  London  in  1844,  and  since  spread 
throughout  the  world,  and  its  sister  society,  the  Young  Women's 
Christian  Association,  organized  in  England  in  1855,  and  both 
peculiarly  successful  in  the  United  States.  They  have  never 
been  more  useful  than  during  the  world  war.  Less  directly 
co-operant  but  uniting  in  similar  aims  have  been  the  Young 
People's  Society  of  Christian  Endeavor,  formed  by  Francis  E. 
Clark  in  1881 ;  and  the  similar  Baptist  Young  People's  Union, 
the  Epworth  League,  the  Luther  League,  and  the  Brotherhood 
of  St.  Andrew. 

It  is  from  missions  that  the  strongest  impulses  to  co-operation 
have  come.  A  powerful  force  in  this  direction  has  been  the 
Student  Volunteer  Missionary  Movement,  launched  in  1886. 
The  manifest  impropriety  of  transferring  denominational  divi 
sions  to  the  mission  field  has  led  to  large  association  of  similar 
groups  of  Christians  into  single  bodies  in  China,  India,  and 
Japan.  The  essential  unity  of  missionary  endeavor  was  mani 
fest  at  the  World  Missionary  Conference,  held  in  Edinburgh 
in  1910,  the  influence  of  which  has  been  potent.  The  evils  of 
religious  rivalries  led,  in  the  United  States,  to  the  establishment 
of  the  Home  Missions  Council  in  1908,  composed  of  represen 
tatives  of  societies  engaged  in  similar  work.  This  has  been 
followed  by  the  Foreign  Missions  Conference  of  North  America, 
the  Council  of  Women  for  Home  Missions,  and  the  Federation 
of  Women's  Boards  of  Foreign  Missions. 

These  associations  are  voluntary.  A  federation  of  a  more 
organic  character  was  created,  after  considerable  preliminary 
negotiation,  by  the  formation  in  1908  of  the  Federal  Council 
of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America,  composed  of  official  dele 
gates  from  its  co-operating  churches.  Its  functions  are  ad- 


TENDENCIES  TOWARD  UNION  589 

visory,  not  legislative  or  judicial.  Its  objects  are:  "To  express 
the  fellowship  and  catholic  unity  of  the  Christian  Church. 
To  bring  the  Christian  bodies  of  America  into  united  service 
for  Christ  and  the  world.  To  encourage  devotional  fellowship 
and  mutual  counsel  concerning  the  spiritual  life  and  religious 
activities  of  the  churches.  To  secure  a  larger  combined  in 
fluence  for  the  churches  of  Christ  in  all  matters  affecting  the 
moral  and  social  condition  of  the  people,  so  as  to  promote  the 
application  of  the  law  of  Christ  in  every  relation  of  human  life." 
The  Federal  Council  now  has  the  support  of  thirty  denomina 
tions,  including  such  important  bodies  as  the  Northern  Baptists, 
Congregationalists,  Disciples,  Lutherans  (under  the  General 
Synod),  Methodists,  North  and  South,  Presbyterians,  North 
and  South,  Protestant  Episcopalians,  and  the  (Dutch  and  Ger 
man)  Reformed. 

A  movement  even  more  ambitious  in  its  plans  was  inaugu 
rated  by  the  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  in  1910,  aiming  at  an  ultimate 
world  conference  on  faith  and  order,  which  may  effect  the  re 
union  of  Christendom.  The  object  has  received  the  support 
of  a  majority  of  American  Protestant  bodies  to  the  extent  of 
official  representation  in  several  preliminary  conferences  which 
have  been  held,  and  an  American  delegation  has  urged  co 
operation  in  Great  Britain  with  success.  The  world  war  has 
delayed  the  progress  in  other  countries  that  was  hoped. 

In  Canada  a  movement  for  the  organic  union  of  Congrega 
tionalists,  Methodists^jtftd^  Presbyterians  has  every  prospect 
of  success. 


The  long  story  of  the  Christian  Church  is  a  panorama  of 
lights  and  shadows,  of  achievement  and  failure,  of  conquests 
and  divisions.  It  has  exhibited  the  divine  life  marvellously 
transforming  the  lives  of  men.  It  has  also  exhibited  those 
passions  and  weaknesses  of  which  human  nature  is  capable. 
Its  tasks  have  seemed,  in  every  age,  almost  insuperable.  They 
were  never  greater  than  at  present  when  confronted  by  a  ma 
terialistic  interpretation  of  life,  and  when  the  furnace  of  almost 
universal  war  bids  fair  to  transform  the  whole  fabric  of  Euro 
pean  and  American  civilization.  Yet  no  Christian  can  survey 
what  the  church  has  done  without  confidence  in  its  future. 
Its  changes  may  be  many,  its  struggles  great.  But  the  good 


590  THE  FUTURE 

hand  of  God  which  has  led  it  hitherto  will  guide  it  to  larger 
usefulness  in  the  advancement  of  the  kingdom  of  its  Lord,  and 
toward  the  fulfilment  of  His  prediction  that  if  He  be  lifted  up 
He  would  draw  all  men  unto  Him. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS 

No  attempt  is  made  to  do  more  than  indicate  what  volumes  the 
reader  of  this  History,  especially  if  unacquainted  with  any  lan 
guage  besides  English,  will  find  most  useful. 

An  encyclopaedia  should  be  at  hand.  The  following  are  especially 
serviceable:  The  New  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  of  Religious 
Knowledge,  New  York,  1908-12;  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and 
Ethics,  Edinburgh  and  New  York,  1908-17  (nine  volumes  to 
"Phrygians"  thus  far  issued);  The  Catholic  Encyclopaedia,  New 
York,  1907-12;  The  Encyclopaedia  Britannicat  eleventh  edition, 
Cambridge  and  New  York,  1910. 

SOURCE  BOOKS. — The  following  source  books  are  indispensable: 
Philip  Schaff,  The  Creeds  of  Christendom,  New  York,  fourth  edition, 
1905;  Joseph  Cullen  Ayer,  Jr.,  A  Source  Book  for  Ancient  Church 
History,  from  the  Apostolic  Age  to  the  Close  of  the  Condliar  Period, 
New  York,  1913;  Ernest  F.  Henderson,  Select  Historical  Documents 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  London,  1912;  James  Harvey  Robinson,  Read 
ings  in  European  History,  Boston  and  New  York  [1904,  1906]; 
Henry  Gee  and  William  John  Hardy,  Documents  Illustrative  of 
English  Church  History,  London,  1896.  The  selections  in  the 
volumes  just  enumerated  are  in  English  translation.  For  those 
who  can  read  Latin  and  French  the  following  work  is  of  high  worth: 
B.  J.  Kidd,  Documents  Illustrative  of  the  Continental  Reformation, 
Oxford,  1911.  All  these  source  books  are  cited  in  this  history. 
To  any  who  can  read  Latin,  Carl  Mirbt,  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des 
Papsttums,  Tubingen  and  Leipzig,  1901,  is  invaluable  for  papal  de 
velopment. 

SOURCES. — The  following  sources  are  readily  available  in  Eng 
lish  translation:  J.  B.  Lightfoot  and  J.  R.  Harmer,  The  Apostolic 
Fathers,  London,  1898;  Kirsopp  Lake,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  two 
volumes,  New  York,  1913.  The  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  .  .  .  Down 
to  A.  D.  325,  ten  volumes,  New  York,  1896.  The  translations  are 
of  varying  excellence.  This  series  is  continued  in  the  Nicene  and 
Post-Nicene  Fathers.  The  First  Series,  fourteen  volumes,  New 
York,  1886-94,  embraces  the  works  of  Augustine  and  Chrysostom. 
The  Second  Series,  twelve  volumes,  New  York,  1890-95,  contains 

591 


592  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS 

the  whole  or  selections  from  the  principal  writers  from  Eusebius 
to  Gregory  the  Great.  The  first  volume  of  this  Second  Series, 
Eusebius 's  Ecclesiastical  History,  translated  and  annotated  by  A. 
C.  McGiffert,  is  indispensable.  For  those  who  read  Greek  and 
Latin  much  ampler  sources  are  provided  by  J.  P.  Migne  in  his  two 
great  series,  Patrologia  Latina,  two  hundred  and  twenty-one  vol 
umes,  Paris,  1844-64,  extending  to  Innocent  III;  and  Patrologia 
Grceca,  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  volumes,  Paris,  1857-66.  The 
texts  are  often  uncritically  given.  Of  highest  critical  excellence 
for  the  early  portion  of  the  field  covered  by  Migne  are  the  Cor 
pus  scriptorum  ecclesiasticorum  latinorum,  in  course  of  publication 
since  1866  by  the  Vienna  Academy;  and  Die  griechischen  christ- 
lichen  Schriftsteller,  issued  since  1897  by  the  Prussian  Academy. 
For  the  acts  of  councils  the  new  edition  (Paris,  1901-)  of  J.  D. 
Mansi,  Sacrorum  conciliorum  nova  et  amplissima  colledio,  extending 
to  the  present,  may  be  consulted.  Papal  letters  and  decrees  may 
be  found  to  1304  in  P.  Jaffe,  Regesta  pontificum  Romanorum,  and 
his  continuers,  Leipzig,  1881-88;  Berlin,  1874.  The  relations  of 
the  papacy  and  mediaeval  empire  may  be  studied  in  the  great  col 
lection  by  G.  H.  Pertz  and  successive  editors,  Monumenta  Ger- 
manioe  historica,  Hanover,  1826-  to  the  present. 

John  Huss's  The  Church  is  accessible  in  translation  by  David 
S.  Schaff,  New  York,  1915. 

Luther's  fundamental  writings  are  translated  by  H.  Wace  and 
C.  A.  Buchheim,  First  Principles  of  the  Reformation,  Philadelphia, 
1885;  enlarged  as  Luther's  Primary  Works  together  with  His  Shorter 
and  Larger  Catechisms,  London,  1896.  Luther's  Works  are  in 
process  of  publication  in  English,  vols.  I  and  II.,  Philadelphia, 
1915.  Much  of  Luther's  table-talk  is  accessible  in  Preserved 
Smith  and  H.  P.  Gallinger,  Conversations  with  Luther,  Boston,  1915. 
Lutheran  symbolics  may  be  studied  in  H.  E.  Jacob,  The  Book  of 
Concord:  or,  The  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church,  two  volumes,  Philadelphia,  1882-83.  For  those  who  read 
German  and  Latin  the  definitive  edition  of  Luther's  writings  is  the 
Werke,  in  process  of  publication  in  Weimar  since  1884,  of  which 
more  than  fifty  volumes  have  been  issued. 

The  writings  of  Zwingli  are  accessible  in  S.  M.  Jackson,  The 
Latin  Works  and  Correspondence  of  Huldreich  Zwingli,  two  volumes, 
New  York,  1912,  1917. 

Most  of  Calvin's  writings  are  translated  into  English,  as  The 
Works  of  John  Calvin,  fifty-two  volumes,  Edinburgh,  1843-55. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS  593 

The  student  will  find  the  Institutes  indispensable.  They  are  best 
translated  by  Henry  Beveridge,  in  the  series  just  cited,  3  volumes, 
Edinburgh,  1845-46.  For  those  who  read  Latin  and  French  the 
edition  of  the  Strassburg  editors,  Joannis  Calvini  Opera,  fifty -nine 
volumes,  Braunschweig,  1863-1900,  is  a  storehouse. 

The  Works  of  James  Arminius  are  available  in  English  transla 
tion  by  James  Nichols  and  W.  R.  Bagnall,  three  volumes,  London, 
1825  and  1828,  Buffalo,  1853.  Hugo  Grotius's  Defence  of  the 
Catholic  Faith  Concerning  the  Satisfaction  of  Jesus  Christ  was  trans 
lated  by  F.  H.  Foster,  Andover,  1889. 

The  Racovian  Catechism  is  a  prime  source  for  Socinianism. 
English  translation,  London,  1818. 

The  general  student  will  find  much  regarding  the  English  Ref 
ormation  in  Henry  Gee  and  W.  J.  Hardy,  Documents  Illustrative 
of  English  Church  History,  London,  1896,  already  cited  under 
Source  Books;  and  in  Charles  Hardwick,  A  History  of  the  Articles 
of  Religion,  Cambridge,  1859;  and  in  Francis  Procter  and  W.  H. 
Frere,  A  New  History  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  London  and 
New  York,  1901.  Puritan  wishes  can  be  studied  in  W.  H.  Frere, 
Puritan  Manifestoes,  a  Study  of  the  Origin  of  the  Puritan  Revolt, 
London,  1907;  and  S.  R.  Gardiner,  Constitutional  Documents  of  the 
Puritan  Revolution,  Oxford,  1899.  The  aims  of  Congregationalists 
are  manifest  in  Williston  Walker,  The  Creeds  and  Platforms  of  Con 
gregationalism,  New  York,  1893;  and  W.  J.  McGlothlin,  Baptist 
Confessions  of  Faith,  Philadelphia,  1911,  does  a  similar  service  for 
the  Baptists. 

Any  who  would  make  a  special  study  of  the  English  Reformation 
will  need  to  consult  the  Letters  and  Papers,  foreign  and  Domestic, 
of  the  Reign  of  Henry  VIII,  twenty -one  volumes,  London,  1862- 
1910;  and  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic  Series,  of  the  Reigns 
of  Edward  VI,  Mary,  Elizabeth,  James  I,  twelve  volumes,  London, 
1856-72.  The  writings  of  the  leading  English  reformers  were  pub 
lished  by  the  Parker  Society,  Works  of  the  English  Reformers,  fifty- 
four  volumes,  Cambridge,  1841-54.  Many  documents  of  prime 
importance  may  be  found  in  E.  Cardwell,  Documentary  Annals  of 
the  Church  of  England,  two  volumes,  Oxford,  1844;  Gilbert  Burnet, 
History  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England,  Pocock's  edi 
tion,  seven  volumes,  Oxford,  1865;  and  John  Strype,  Complete 
Works,  twenty-seven  volumes,  Oxford,  1822-40. 

A  collection  of  much  importance  for  Scotland  is  [William  Dun- 
lop]  A  Collection  of  Confessions  of  Faith,  Catechisms  .  .  .  of  Public 


594  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS 

Authority  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  two  volumes,  Edinburgh,  1719- 
22.  Further  study  should  be  made  of  the  Calendar  of  State  Papers 
Relating  to  Scotland  (1547-1603),  six  volumes,  Edinburgh,  1898- 
1910.  The  works  of  Knox  and  other  Scottish  Presbyterian  lead 
ers  were  published  by  the  Wodrow  Society,  twenty-four  volumes, 
London,  1842-.  A  similar  service  for  the  leaders  of  Scottish  epis 
copacy  was  performed  by  the  Spottiswoode  Society,  sixteen  vol 
umes,  Edinburgh,  1844-. 

HISTORIES  OF  DOCTRINE  AND  CHRISTIAN  THOUGHT. — The  fol 
lowing  brief  volumes  will  constitute  a  good  introduction:  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  History  of  the  Study  of  Theology,  two  volumes,  New  York, 
1916;  H.  B.  Workman,  Christian  Thought  to  the  Reformation,  New 
York,  1911;  A.  C.  McGiffert,  Protestant  Thought  before  Kant,  New 
York,  1911;  and  E.  C.  Moore,  History  of  Christian  Thought  Since 
Kant,  New  York,  1912.  A  more  comprehensive  work  is  George 
P.  Fisher,  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  New  York,  1896.  A  work 
of  great  value  reaching  to  the  Reformation,  and  with  the  quota 
tions  in  English  translation  as  well  as  the  text,  is  Reinhold  See- 
berg,  Text-Book  of  the  History  of  Doctrines,  two  volumes,  Phila 
delphia,  1905.  For  any  who  can  read  German  the  best  work  (to 
the  close  of  the  Reformation)  is  Friedrich  Loofs,  Leitfaden  zum 
Studium  der  Dogmengeschichte,  fourth  edition,  Halle,  1906.  For  the 
advanced  student  an  indispensable  work  (to  the  close  of  the  Ref 
ormation)  is  Adolf  von  Harnack,  History  of  Dogma,  English  trans 
lation,  seven  volumes,  Boston,  1896-1900.  An  illuminating  treat 
ment  is  that  of  Henry  Osborn  Taylor,  The  Mediaeval  Mind,  two  vol 
umes,  London  and  New  York,  1914.  Julius  Kostlin,  The  Theology 
of  Luther,  English  translation,  two  volumes,  Philadelphia  [1897],  is 
to  be  commended.  For  later  development,  J.  A.  Dorner,  History  of 
Protestant  Theology,  Particularly  in  Germany,  English  translation, 
two  volumes,  Edinburgh,  1871.  A  very  useful  work  is  A.  C. 
McGiffert,  The  Rise  of  Modern  Religious  Ideas,  New  York,  1915. 
The  development  of  the  modern  situation  may  be  further  studied 
in  Ernst  Troeltsch,  Protestantism  and  Progress,  New  York,  1912; 
W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  The  History  of  the  Rise  and  Influence  of  Rational 
ism  in  Europe,  London,  1867;  Andrew  D.  White,  A  History  of  the 
Warfare  of  Science  with  Theology,  New  York,  1896;  Leslie  Stephen, 
History  of  English  Thought  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  two  volumes, 
New  York,  1876;  John  Tulloch,  Movements  of  Religious  Thought  in 
Britain  During  the  Nineteenth  Century,  New  York,  1901.  The  best 
work  in  its  field  is  Frank  H.  Foster,  A  Genetic  History  of  the  New 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS  595 

England  Theology,  Chicago,  1907.  A  work  of  great  suggestiveness 
is  William  James,  Varieties  of  Religious  Experience,  New  York, 
1902. 

MISSIONS. — The  following  works  will  initiate  the  student  into 
the  story  of  Christian  missions.  Adolf  von  Harnack,  The  Mission 
and  Expansion  of  Christianity  in  the  First  Three  Centuries,  English 
translation,  two  volumes,  New  York,  1908;  George  F.  Maclear,  A 
History  of  Christian  Missions  During  the  Middle  Ages,  London, 
1863 ;  Gustav  Warneck,  Outline  of  the  History  of  Protestant  Missions, 
English  translation,  Edinburgh,  1906;  Charles  H.  Robinson,  His 
tory  of  Christian  Missions,  New  York,  1915;  W.  H.  P.  Faunce, 
The  Social  Aspects  of  Foreign  Missions,  New  York,  1914. 

THE  PREPARATION. — Three  small  volumes  will  serve  as  an  in 
troduction  to  the  Jewish  situation.  Charles  F.  Kent,  A  History 
of  the  Jewish  People  During  the  Babylonian,  Persian,  and  Greek 
Periods,  New  York,  1899;  James  S.  Riggs,  A  History  of  the  Jewish 
People  During  the  Maccabean  and  Roman  Periods,  New  York,  1900; 
Shailer  Mathews,  A  History  of  New  Testament  Times  in  Palestine, 
London  and  New  York,  1913.  The  more  advanced  student  will 
consult  Emil  Schiirer,  History  of  the  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of 
Jesus  Christ,  English  translation,  five  volumes,  Edinburgh,  1885- 
90,  New  York,  1896;  A.  B.  Davidson,  The  Theology  of  the  Old 
Testament,  New  York,  1904;  R.  H.  Charles,  The  Apocrypha  and 
Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testament,  two  volumes,  Oxford,  1913. 

For  the  situation  outside  of  Judaism,  Wilhelm  Windelband,  A 
History  of  Philosophy,  English  translation,  New  York,  1901; 
Eduard  Zeller,  History  of  Greek  Philosophy,  English  translation, 
two  volumes,  London,  1881 ;  and  his  Stoics,  Epicureans,  and  Sceptics, 
London  and  New  York,  1892;  Franz  Cumont,  Oriental  Religions  in 
Roman  Paganism,  Chicago,  1911;  T.  R.  Glover,  The  Conflict  of 
Religions  within  the  Roman  Empire,  London,  1909;  Samuel  Dill, 
Roman  Society  from  Nero  to  Marcus  Aurelius,  London,  1904. 

THE  BEGINNINGS. — S.  J.  Case,  The  Evolution  of  Early  Christi 
anity,  Chicago,  1914;  Paul  Wernle,  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity, 
English  translation,  two  volumes,  New  York,  1903-04.  The  his 
tory  and  present  status  of  investigation  regarding  the  life  of  Christ 
can  be  learned  from  Albert  Schweitzer,  The  Quest  of  the  Historical 
Jesus,  English  translation,  London,  1910;  William  Sanday,  The 
Life  of  Christ  in  Recent  Research,  New  York,  1907;  S.  J.  Case,  The 
Historicity  of  Jesus,  Chicago,  1912.  The  life  of  Paul  is  well  treated 
in  B.  W.  Bacon,  The  Story  of  St.  Paul,  Boston,  1904.  The  history 


596  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS 

of  Pauline  investigation  is  discussed  in  Albert  Schweitzer,  Paul  and 
His  Interpreters,  English  translation,  London,  1912;  see  also  H. 
A.  A.  Kennedy,  St.  Paul  and  the  Mystery  Religions,  London  and 
New  York  [1913]. 

Excellent  general  discussions  of  the  apostolic  period  are  A.  C. 
McGiffert,  History  of  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  second  edi 
tion,  New  York,  1910;  J.  H.  Ropes,  The  Apostolic  Age,  New  York, 
1906.  A  more  elaborate  treatment  is  Carl  von  Weizsacker,  The 
Apostolic  Age  of  the  Christian  Church,  English  translation,  two 
volumes,  London  and  New  York,  1897. 

The  following  works  will  aid  in  initiation  into  the  present  status 
of  New  Testament  discussion :  *H.  S.  Nash,  The  History  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  New  York,  1900;  Edward  C. 
Moore,  The  New  Testament  in  the  Christian  Church,  New  York, 
1904 ;  James  Moffatt,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Tes 
tament,  New  York,  1911. 

THE  CHURCH  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE. — The  best  introductory 
work  is  Louis  Duchesne,  The  Early  History  of  the  Christian  Church 
from  Its  Foundation  to  the  End  of  the  Fifth  Century,  English  trans 
lation,  two  volumes,  New  York,  1909,  1912.  A  good  sketch  is 
that  of  Robert  Rainy,  The  Ancient  Catholic  Church,  New  York, 
1902.  A  larger  work  on  the  early  period  is  H.  M.  Gwatkin,  Early 
Church  History  to  A.  D.  313,  two  volumes,  London,  1909.  Indis 
pensable  is  Adolf  von  Harnack,  The  Mission  and  Expansion  of 
Christianity  in  the  First  Three  Centuries,  second  edition,  two  vol 
umes,  New  York,  1908.  An  elaborate  work  for  the  more  advanced 
student  is  Wilhelm  Moeller  and  Hans  von  Schubert,  History  of  the 
Christian  Church,  First  Volume  to  A.  D.  600,  English  translation, 
London  and  New  York,  1892.  A  readable  collection  of  biographies 
is  Frederic  W.  Farrar,  Lives  of  the  Fathers,  two  volumes,  New  York, 
1889.  A  suggestive  volume  is  J.  Estlin  Carpenter,  Phases  of  Early 
Christianity,  New  York,  1916. 

Early  Christian  life  is  admirably  treated  by  Ernst  von  Dob- 
schiitz,  Christian  Life  in  the  Primitive  Church,  English  translation, 
New  York,  1904.  For  the  persecutions  see  H.  B.  Workman, 
Persecution  in  the  Early  Church,  London,  1906;  L.  H.  Canfield, 
The  Early  Persecutions  of  the  Christians,  New  York,  1913;  W.  M. 
Ramsay,  The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire  before  A.  D.  170,  Lon 
don  and  New  York,  1893. 

For  the  Apostles'  Creed  see  A.  C.  McGiffert,  The  Apostles'  Creed, 
New  York,  1902. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS  597 

For  the  organization  of  the  early  church,  Edwin  Hatch,  The 
Organization  of  the  Early  Christian  Churches,  London,  1895;  Walter 
Lowrie,  The  Church  and  Its  Organization,  London  and  New  York, 
1904;  T.  M.  Lindsay,  The  Church  and  the  Ministry  in  the  Early 
Centuries,  London  and  New  York,  1902;  Adolf  von  Harnack,  The 
Constitution  and  Law  of  the  Church  in  the  First  Two  Centuries, 
English  translation,  London  and  New  York,  1910.  For  the  High 
Anglican  view  see  Charles  Gore,  The  Ministry  of  the  Christian 
Church,  London,  1889;  and  his  Orders  and  Unity,  New  York,  1909. 

A  good  guide  to  the  non-canonical  literature  of  early  Christianity 
is  Gustav  Kriiger,  History  of  Early  Christian  Literature  in  the  First 
Three  Centuries,  English  translation,  London  and  New  York,  1897. 
The  student  who  can  read  German  will  have  recourse  to  the  monu 
mental  work  by  Adolf  von  Harnack,  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen 
Litteratur  bis  Eusebius,  three  volumes,  Leipzig,  1893-1904. 

A  good  brief  introduction  to  Christian  archaeology  is  Walter 
Lowrie,  Monuments  of  the  Early  Church,  New  York,  1901. 

For  the  church  in  the  empire  after  the  conversion  of  Constan- 
tine  the  student  will  find  much  of  value  in  The  Cambridge  Mediaeval 
History,  vol.  I,  The  Christian  Roman  Empire,  New  York,  1911. 
Good  manuals  on  this  period  are  A.  H.  Hore,  Students'  History  of 
the  Greek  Church,  London  and  New  York,  1902;  and  W.  F.  Adeney, 
The  Greek  and  Eastern  Churches,  New  York,  1908.  Monasticism  is 
discussed  by  H.  B.  Workman,  The  Evolution  of  the  Monastic  Ideal, 
London,  1913;  and  Adolf  von  Harnack,  Monasticism;  Its  Ideals  and 
Its  History,  English  translation,  New  York,  1895.  A  mine  of  in 
formation  for  the  German  reader  is  Max  Heimbucher,  Die  Orden 
und  Kongregationen  der  Katholichen  Kirchet  two  volumes,  Pader- 
born,  1896-97. 

A  compact  sketch  of  the  councils  is  that  of  W.  P.  DuBose,  The 
Ecumenical  Councils,  New  York,  1896.  Much  fuller  is  K.  J. 
Hefele,  A  History  of  the  Christian  Councils,  English  translation, 
five  volumes,  Edinburgh,  1871-96. 

Two  special  studies  of  unusual  value  are  J.  B.  Bury,  The  Life  of 
St.  Patrick  and  His  Place  in  History,  London  and  New  York,  1905 ; 
and  F.  H.  Dudden,  Gregory  the  Great:  His  Place  in  History  and 
Thought,  two  volumes,  London,  1905. 

THE  CHURCH  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES  AND  TO  THE  REFORMATION. 
—The  earlier  portion  of  this  period  is  well  treated  in  The  Cambridge 
Mcdicsval  History,  vol.  II,  The  Rise  of  the  Saracem  and  the  Founda 
tion  of  the  Western  Empire,  New  York,  1913.  A  classic  exposition 


598  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS 

of  the  relations  of  the  mediaeval  church  to  the  state  is  James  Bryce, 
The  Holy  Roman  Empire,  new  edition,  London,  1904.  A  work  of 
wealth  of  information  regarding  the  ecclesiastical  life  and  institu 
tions  is  Andre  Lagarde,  The  Latin  Church  in  the  Middle  Ages,  English 
translation,  New  York,  1915.  A  classic  treatment  especially  of  the 
mediaeval  papacy  is  Ferdinand  Gregorovius,  History  of  the  City  of 
Rome,  English  translation,  eight  volumes,  London,  1894-1902. 
For  the  latter  part  of  the  period  (1049-1517)  a  fresh  and  suggestive 
treatment  is  that  of  D.  S.  Schaff  in  continuation  of  his  father, 
Philip  Schaff 's  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  viz.,  vol.  V,  Parts  I 
and  II  (each  an  ample  volume),  New  York,  1907,  1910.  A  general 
history  of  the  period  for  the  advanced  student  is  Wilhelm  Moeller, 
History  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  II,  The  Middle  Ages,  English 
translation,  London,  1893. 

Special  treatises  of  value  are  Gustav  Kriiger,  The  Papacy:  the 
Idea  and  Its  Exponents,  English  translation,  New  York,  1909;  and 
Paul  Sabatier,  Life  of  St.  Francis  of  Assisi,  New  York,  1894. 

Compact  volumes  of  service  are  M.  R.  Vincent,  The  Age  of  Hil- 
debrand,  New  York,  1896;  J.  M.  Ludlow,  The  Age  of  the  Crusades, 
New  York,  1896j  R.  L.  Poole,  Illustrations  of  the  History  of  Me- 
diceval  Thought,  London,  1884. 

For  English  church  history  the  student  will  find  the  following 
of  use:  William  Hunt,  The  English  Church  from  Its  Foundation  to 
the  Norman  Conquest,  London  and  New  York,  1899;  W.  R.  W. 
Stephens,  The  English  Church  from  the  Norman  Conquest  to  the 
Accession  of  Edward  I,  London  and  New  York,  1901 ;  W.  W.  Capes, 
The  English  Church  in  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Centuries,  Lon 
don  and  New  York,  1900;  G.  M.  Trevelyan,  England  in  the  Age  of 
Wyclife,  London  and  New  York,  1899.  For  an  unsympathetic 
treatment  see  James  Gairdner,  Lollardy  and  the  Reformation  in 
England,  vol.  I,  London,  1908. 

For  Huss,  David  S.  Schaff,  John  Huss,  His  Life,  Teachings  and 
Death,  After  Five  Hundred  Years,  New  York,  1915;  and  Schaff 's 
translation  of  Huss's  The  Church,  New  York,  1915. 

For  Savonarola,  P.  Villari,  Life  and  Times  of  Girolamo  Savonarola, 
English  translation,  two  volumes,  New  York,  1888. 

Most  valuable  and  extensive  treatments  of  the  period  preceding 
the  Reformation  are  given  in  Mandell  Creighton,  History  of  the 
Papacy  from  the  Great  Schism  to  the  Sack  of  Rome,  six  volumes, 
London  and  New  York,  1892.  From  a  Roman  point  of  view,  Lud- 
wig  Pastor,  History  of  the  Popes  from  the  Close  of  the  Middle  Ages, 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS  599 

English  translation,  twelve  volumes,  London,  1891-1912.  Gre- 
gorovius,  History  of  the  City  of  Rome,  already  cited,  continues  of 
great  worth  for  this  period.  The  same  may  be  said  of  The  Cam 
bridge  Modern  History,  vol.  I,  The  Renaissance,  London  and  New 
York,  1902. 

THE  REFORMATION. — The  student  will  find  the  best  introduc 
tion  T.  M.  Lindsay,  A  History  of  the  Reformation,  two  volumes, 
New  York,  1906,  1907.  A  succinct  treatment  is  Williston  Walker, 
The  Reformation,  New  York,  1900.  A  more  elaborate  work  of 
great  value  by  Wilhelm  Moeller  and  Gustav  Kawerau  is  History  of 
the  Christian  Church,  vol.  Ill,  Reformation  and  Counter-Reformation, 
English  translation,  London,  1900.  Volumes  of  great  wealth  of 
detail  are :  The  Cambridge  Modern  History,  London  and  New  York, 
1904-06,  vol.  II,  The  Reformation;  vol.  Ill,  The  Wars  of  Religion; 
vol.  IV,  The  Thirty  Years'  War.  For  the  Roman  point  of  view 
see  Johannes  Janssen,  History  of  the  German  People  After  the  Close 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  English  translation,  sixteen  volumes,  London, 
1896-1910.  A  good  brief  sketch  is  A.  W.  Ward,  The  Counter- 
Reformation,  London,  1889. 

The  life  of  Luther  is  well  told  in  the  following:  A.  C.  McGiffert, 
Martin  Luther,  the  Man  and  His  Work,  New  York,  1911;  Preserved 
Smith,  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Martin  Luther,  Boston,  1911;  H.  E. 
Jacobs,  Martin  Luther,  New  York,  1898.  A  study  of  great  value 
is  H.  Boehmer,  Luther  in  the  Light  of  Recent  Research,  English 
translation,  New  York,  1916.  A  Roman  estimate  of  Luther  is 
that  of  Hartmann  Grisar,  Luther,  English  translation,  London, 
1913. 

Other  biographies  of  Reformation  leaders  are:  J.  W.  Richard, 
Philip  Melanchthon,  New  York,  1898;  Ephraim  Emerton,  Desi- 
derius  Erasmus,  New  York,  1899 ;  S.  M.  Jackson,  Huldreich  Zwingli, 
New  York,  1901;  Williston  Walker,  John  Calmn,  New  York,  1906; 
H.  Y.  Reyburn,  John  Calmn,  His  Life,  Letters  and  Work,  London 
and  New  York,  1914;  H.  M.  Baird,  Theodore  Beza,  New  York,  1899. 

For  German  conditions,  Henry  C.  Vedder,  The  Reformation  in 
Germany,  New  York,  1914.  For  France,  H.  M.  Baird,  History  of 
the  Rise  of  the  Huguenots,  second  edition,  five  volumes,  New  York, 
1895-1907.  For  the  Netherlands,  P.  J.  Blok,  History  of  the  People 
of  the  Netherlands,  English  translation,  five  volumes,  New  York, 
1898-1912;  Ruth  Putnam,  William  the  Silent,  two  volumes,  New 
York,  1895. 

For  the  Anabaptist  movement,  A.  H.  Newman,  A  History  of 


600  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS 

Anti-P&dobaptism,  Philadelphia,  1897;  Henry  C.  Vedder,  A  Short 
History  of  the  Baptists,  Philadelphia  [1907];  Henry  C.  Vedder, 
Balthasar  Hubmaicr,  New  York,  1903;  J.  Horsch,  Menno  Simons, 
His  Life,  Labours  and  Teaching,  Scottdale,  Pa.,  1916. 

For  contemporary  and  later  developments  in  the  Greek,  Russian, 
and  other  Oriental  Churches:  A.  H.  Hore,  Student's  History  of  the 
Greek  Church,  London  and  New  York,  1902;  W.  F.  Adeney,  The 
Greek  and  Eastern  Churches,  New  York,  1908. 

GREAT  BRITAIN  IN  THE  REFORMATION  AND  SINCE. — The  English 
Reformation  is  carefully  treated  by  James  Gairdner,  The  English 
Church  .  .  .  from  the  Accession  of  Henry  VIII  to  the  Death  of 
Mary,  London  and  New  York,  1902;  and  by  W.  H.  Frere,  The 
English  Church  in  the  Reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James  I,  London  and 
New  York,  1904.  Learned  but  unsympathetic  is  James  Gairdner, 
Lollardy  and  the  Reformation  in  England,  four  volumes,  London, 
1908-14.  The  Roman  point  of  view  is  given  by  F.  A.  Gasquet, 
The  Eve  of  the  Reformation,  London,  1905.  Two  biographies  of 
high  value  are  those  of  A.  F.  Pollard,  Henry  VIII,  London,  1905; 
and  Thomas  Cranmer,  New  York,  1904.  See  also  R.  W.  Dixon, 
History  of  the  Church  of  England  from  the  Abolition  of  the  Roman 
Jurisdiction,  five  volumes,  London,  1878-92. 

An  excellent  introduction  not  merely  to  the  Scottish  Reformation 
but  to  the  whole  religious  history  of  Scotland  is  that  of  P.  Hume 
Brown,  History  of  Scotland,  three  volumes,  Cambridge,  1902-09. 
A  good  sketch  is  D.  Hay  Fleming,  The  Scottish  Reformation,  Lon 
don,  1910.  For  Knox  see  Henry  Cowan,  John  Knox,  New  York, 
1905. 

For  the  rise  and  history  of  Non-Conformity  valuable  introduc 
tions  are:  Henry  W.  Clark,  History  of  English  Non-Conformity,  two 
volumes,  London,  1911,  1913;  Champlin  Burrage,  The  Early 
English  Dissenters  in  the  Light  of  Recent  Research,  two  volumes, 
Cambridge,  1912;  William  Pierce,  An  Historical  Introduction  to 
the  Marprelate  Tracts,  London,  1908;  R.  W.  and  A.  W.  W.  Dale, 
History  of  English  Congregationalism,  London,  1907. 

A  work  presenting  the  Anglican  point  of  view  effectively  for  the 
latter  part  of  Elizabeth's  reign  and  the  early  years  of  James  I  is 
Roland  G.  Usher,  The  Reconstruction  of  the  English  Church,  two 
volumes,  London  and  New  York,  1910.  A  general  sketch  from 
the  same  standpoint  is  W.  [H.  Hutton,  The  English  Church  from 
the  Accession  of  Charles  I  to  the  Death  of  Annet  London  and  New 
York,  1903. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS  601 

A  mine  of  information  regarding  religious  movements  in  six 
teenth-century  England,  and  especially  the  Quakers,  is  Robert 
Barclay,  The  Inner  Life  of  the  Religious  Societies  of  the  Common 
wealth,  London,  1879.  For  Fox  see  Thomas  Hodgkin,  The  Life  of 
George  Fox,  London  and  New  York,  1896;  and  the  extracts  from 
Fox's  Journal,  edited  by  Rufus  M.  Jones,  George  Fox,  an  Autobi 
ography,  two  volumes,  Philadelphia,  1903. 

For  the  Methodist  movement  and  its  leaders  see  W.  J.  Town- 
send,  H.  B.  Workman,  and  George  Eayrs,  A  New  History  of  Method 
ism,  two  volumes,  London,  1909.  Much  relating  to  the  religious 
condition  of  England  is  to  be  found  in  W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  History  of 
England  During  the  Eighteenth  Century,  eight  volumes,  London, 
1878-90.  See  also  Henry  W.  Clark,  History  of  English  Non- 
Conformity,  already  cited. 

For  the  high-church  movement  see  R.  W.  Church,  The  Oxford 
Movement,  London,  1891;  J.  H.  Overton,  The  Anglican  Revival, 
London,  1897;  J.  H.  Newman,  Apologia  pro  vita  sua,  London,  1864; 
J.  T.  Coleridge,  A  Memoir  of  John  Keble,  Oxford,  1869;  H.  P. 
Liddon,  Life  of  Edward  Bouverie  Puscy,  five  volumes,  London, 
1893-99. 

GERMANY. — For  Pietism  and  Rationalism  see  J.  A.  Dorner, 
History  of  Protestant  Theology,  Particularly  in  Germany,  English 
translation,  two  volumes,  Edinburgh,  1871;  H.  E.  Guericke,  Life 
of  A.  H.  Francke,  English  translation,  London,  1837.  Moravians, 
see  John  Holmes,  History  of  the  Protestant  Church  of  the  United 
Brethren,  two  volumes,  London,  1825,  1830;  A.  G.  Spangenberg, 
The  Life  of  Nicholas,  Count  Zinzcndorf,  English  translation,  Lon 
don,  1838;  Augustus  C.  Thompson,  Moravian  Missions,  New 
York,  1895. 

For  Rationalism,  the  following  work,  though  unsympathetic,  is 
of  value  in  the  absence  of  much  literature  in  English:  J.  F.  Hurst, 
History  of  Rationalism  Embracing  a  Survey  of  the  Present  State  of 
Protestant  Theology,  revised  edition,  New  York,  1901.  See  also 
K.  R.  Hagenbach,  German  Rationalism,  English  translation,  Edin 
burgh,  1864. 

For  later  developments  see  F.  A.  Lichtenberger,  History  of 
German  Theology  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  English  translation, 
Edinburgh,  1889;  Otto  Pfleiderer,  The  Development  of  Theology 
Since  Kant  and  Its  Progress  in  Great  Britain  since  1825,  London 
and  New  York,  1893;  Friedrich  Paulsen,  Immanuel  Kant,  His 
Life  and  Doctrine,  English  translation,  New  York,  1902;  F.  D. 


602  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS 

E.  Schleiermacher,  On  Religion,  English  translation,  London,  1902; 
W.  B.  Selbie,  Schleiermacher:  A  Critical  and  Historical  Study, 
New  York,  1913;  A.  T.  Swing,  The  Theology  of  Albrecht  Ritschl, 
New  York,  1901;  R.  Mackintosh,  Albrecht  Ritschl  and  His  School, 
London,  1915. 

AMERICA. — The  most  accessible  and,  on  the  whole,  the  most 
valuable  outlines  of  the  history  of  the  principal  religious  denomina 
tions  in  the  United  States  are  those  in  the  series  entitled  American 
Church  History,  thirteen  volumes,  New  York,  1893-97.  Vol.  XIII 
of  this  series,  by  L.  W.  Bacon,  A  History  of  American  Christianity, 
is  a  compendious  sketch  of  the  religious  life  of  the  United  States. 
See  also  Daniel  Dorchester,  Christianity  in  the  United  States,  New 
York,  1895. 

Denominational  histories  of  value,  besides  those  in  the  "  Ameri 
can  Church  History"  series,  are:  Abel  Stevens,  History  of  the  Meth 
odist  Episcopal  Church,  four  volumes,  New  York,  1864-67;  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  American  Presbyterianismr  Its  Origin  and  Early  History, 
New  York,  1885;  S.  D.  McConnell,  History  of  the  American  Epis 
copal  Church,  New  York,  1890;  W.  T.  Moore,  A  Comprehensive 
History  of  the  Disciples  of  Christ,  New  York  [1909]. 

A  sketch  of  the  religious  life  of  New  England  is  that  of  G.  L. 
Walker,  Some  Aspects  of  the  Religious  Life  of  New  England,  Boston, 
1897. 

A  wealth  of  biographical  information  regarding  American  min 
isters  of  many  denominations,  to  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  may  be  found  in  W.  B.  Sprague,  Annals  of  the  American 
Pulpit,  nine  volumes,  New  York,  1857-69.  Typical  American 
religious  leaders  are  commemorated  by  Williston  Walker,  Ten  New 
England  Leaders,  Boston,  1901;  A.  V.  G.  Allen,  Jonathan  Edwards, 
Boston,  1889;  J.  W.  Chadwick,  William  Ellery  Channing,  Boston, 
1903;  T.  T.  Munger,  Horace  Bushnell,  Boston,  1899;  J.  O.  Mur 
ray,  Francis  Wayland,  Boston,  1891;  George  Prentice,  Wilbur  Fisk, 
Boston,  1890;  J.  W.  Chadwick,  Theodore  Parker,  Boston,  1901; 
W.  W.  Newton,  Dr.  [William  A.]  Muhlenberg,  Boston,  1890; 
Lyman  Abbott,  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  Boston,  1903;  A.  V.  G. 
Allen,  Phillips  Brooks,  New  York,  1907. 

The  following  among  many  other  volumes  may  be  cited  as  illus 
trative  of  recent  tendencies  in  American  religious  thought:  W.  N. 
Clarke,  An  Outline  of  Christian  Theology,  New  York,  1898;  W.  A. 
Brown,  Christian  Theology  in  Outline,  New  York,  1906;  Henry  C. 
King,  Theology  and  the  Social  Consciousness,  London  and  New 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  SUGGESTIONS  603 

York,  1902;  his  Reconstruction  in  Theology,  London  and  New 
York,  1901;  hi§  Fundamental  Questions,  London  and  New  York, 
1917;  F.  G.  Peabody,  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Social  Question,  London 
and  New  York,  1901 ;  his  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Christian  Character, 
London  and  New  York,  1905;  G.  A.  Gordon,  Through  Man  to  God, 
Boston,  1906;  Walter  Rauschenbusch,  Christianity  and  the  Social 
Crisis,  London  and  New  York,  1907;  his  Theology  for  the  Social 
Gospel,  London  and  New  York,  1917;  Shailer  Mathews,  The  Gospel 
and  the  Modern  Man,  London  and  New  York,  1910;  and  his  The 
Church  and  the  Changing  Order,  London  and  New  York,  1913. 

The  present  tendencies  to  co-operation  between  American  com 
munions,  especially  as  illustrated  in  the  Federal  Council  of  the 
Churches  of  Christ  are  discussed  by  C.  S.  Macfarland,  The  Churches 
of  Christ  in  Councilj  New  York  [1917]. 


INDEX 


Abbot,  George,  archbishop  of  Canter 
bury,  465,  466. 
Abelard,  schoolman,  264-266;  also  267, 

273,  275. 

Abyssinia,  church  of,  157,  158. 
Acacius,   patriarch  of  Constantinople, 

135,  154. 
Acolytes,  90,  91. 
Act,  the  Conventicle,  474,  475. 
Act,  the  Five-Mile,  474. 
Act,  the  Test,  475,  547. 
Act,  the  Toleration,  476,  480,  495. 
Adaldag,  missionary,  236. 
Ademar,  bishop  and  Crusader.  240. 
Adeodatus,  Augustine's  son,  176,  178. 
Adrian  VI,  Pope,  351,  354,  422. 
Adventists,  the.  582. 
^thelberht,  King  of  Kent,  198. 
Aetius,  count  of  Italy,  132. 
Agape,  the,  23,  43,  92. 
Agatho,  Pope,  161. 
Agnes,  Empress,  221,  225-227. 
Agricola,  Rudolf,  humanist,  327. 
Aidan.  missionary,  197,  199. 
Aigulf,  King,  192. 
Ailli,   Pierre  d',   theologian,  307,  308, 

338,  345. 
Ainsworth,    Henry.    Congregationalist, 

463. 

Aistulf,  King,  203,  204. 
Alaric,  Visigoth,  131,  184. 
Alberic,  ruler  of  Rome,  215. 
Albert,  count  of  Mansfeld,  325, 
Albert  V,  duke  of  Bavaria,  444. 
Albert,  duke  of  Prussia,  355,  357. 
Albertus  Magnus,  schoolman,  256,  269. 
Albigenses,  see  Cathari. 
Albornoz,  cardinal,  296,  297. 
Albrecht,   archbishop   of  Mainz,   340, 

341. 
Albrecht,    margrave   of  Brandenburg, 

381. 

Alciati,  Andrea,  jurist,  390. 
Alcuin,  scholar,  207,  210,  261. 
Aleander,  Girolamo,  nuncio,  346,  347. 
Alexander,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  114, 

115,  117,  146, 
Alexander,    Popes,    II,    227,    228,    276 

(see  Anselm  of  Lucca);  III,  251-253, 

285,  286;  V,  303,  304,  308;  VI,  318, 

320. 

Alexander,  the  Great,  5,  11,  76. 
Alexander    Farnese,    duke   of   Parma, 

436-440. 


Alexander,  of  Hales,  schoolman,  269, 

276. 

Alexander  Severus,  Emperor,  85. 
Alexandria,  school  of,  76,  77. 
Alexius,    Emperors,    I,    239,   240;   III, 

243. 

Alfonso  IX,  King  of  Leon,  287. 
Alfred,   the   Great,   King  of  England, 

211. 

Allemand,  Louis  d',  cardinal,  312. 
Allen,  William,  cardinal,  438,  440. 
Alogoi,  the,  72. 

Alva,  the  duke  of,  general,  434,  436. 
Alypius,  176,  178. 

Amadeus,  duke  of  Savoy,  see  Felix  V. 
Amalrich,  of  Bena,  mystic  radical,  282, 

283. 

Amboise,  conspiracy  of,  432. 
Ambrose,  bishop  of  Milan.   140,   141; 

monasticism.      138;      hymns,      167; 

preacher,   168;  and  Augustine,   176, 

178;  mentioned,  128,  165,  173,  190, 

330. 
Amsdorf,  Nikolaus  von,  reformer,  340, 

349,  380,  442,  443. 
Anabaptists    (see  also   Baptists),   366- 

373;  beliefs,  368,  369;  Minister,  374, 

375;     toleration,     457;     Anti-Trini 
tarian,  369,  451;  see  also  433,   437, 

453,  461. 

Anacletus  II,  Pope,  247. 
Anastasius,  Emperor,  135. 
Anaxagoras,  philosopher,  3. 
Andersson,  Lars,  reformer,  385. 
Andover  controversy,  the,  539,  586. 
Andrew,  Jakob,  theologian,  443. 
Andrews,  Lancelot,  bishop,  465. 
Angelico,  Fra,  painter.  316. 
Angels,  worship  of,  171 
Anglo-Catholic   movement,   the,   547- 

549. 

Anicetus,  bishop  of  Rome,  64. 
Anne,  of  Cleves,  Queen  of  Henry  VIII, 

407. 

Anne,  Queen  of  Great  Britain,  552. 
Anno,  archbishop  of  Cologne,  227,  228. 
Anselm,  bishop  of  Lucca,  225,  226. 
Anselm,  theologian  and  archbishop  of 

Canterbury,   233,   263,   264;  on  the 

atonement,   263,   264,   456;   see  also 

267,  271,  272,  338. 
Ansgar,     missionary,     213,    214,    236, 

237. 
Anthony,  monastic  founder,  137. 


605 


606 


INDEX 


Antioch,  the  school  of,  106,  114,  115, 
141,  144,  145,  156. 

Antiochus  IV,  Epiphanes,  King,  12. 

Antoine,  King  of  Navarre,  432,  433, 
435. 

Antoninus  Pius,  Emperor,  49-51. 

Apollinaris,  bishop  of  Laodicea,  theo 
logian,  143,  144,  146,  149. 

Apologists,  the,  50. 

Apostles'  Creed,  see  Creed. 

Apostolic  Fathers,  see  Fathers. 

Apostolic  poverty,  see  Poverty. 

Apostolical  succession,  see  Bishops  and 
Succession. 

Aquinas,  Thomas,  life,  270;  theology, 
271-277;  mysticism,  279;  see  also  256, 
291,  324,  332,  340,  562. 

Arcadius,  Emperor,  131,  142. 

Archelaus,  Jewish  ruler,  14. 

Architecture,  Gothic,  245. 

Aresen,  Jon,  bishop  in  Iceland,  384. 

Arianism,  114-128;  missions,  129,  130; 
renounced,  134,  191,  192. 

Aristides,  Apologist,  50. 

Aristotle,  philosopher,  system,  4.  5; 
school  of  Antioch,  145;  Leontius,  155; 
schoolmen,  267,  269;  see  also  51,  163, 
279,  282,  294,  338,  340,  341,  481,  542. 

Arius,  theologian,  pupil  of  Lucian,  106; 
controversy,  114-119,  144;  death, 
119. 

Arkwright,  Richard,  inventor,  507. 

Aries,  Council  of,  see  Council. 

Armada,  the  Great,  439. 

Armenia,  the  Gregorian  Church,  158, 
159,  312. 

Arminianism,  453-457,  464,  466,  468, 
516. 

Arminius,  Jacobus,  theologian,  454. 

Arndt,  Johann,  mystic,  496. 

Arnold,  Gottfried,  historian,  501. 

Arnold,  of  Brescia,  radical,  247,  248. 

Arnold,  Thomas,  broad-church  leader, 
545. 

Arnulf,  Emperor,  215. 

Artemon,  Christology,  72. 

Articles,  the  Lambeth,  464. 

Articles,  the  Marburg,  370. 

Articles,  the  Schwabach,  371. 

Articles,  the  Thirty-nine,  410,  414,  415, 
495. 

Asbury,  Francis,  Methodist,  517,  518, 
575. 

Ascension,  the,  169. 

Asclepiodorus,  Christology,  72. 

Assembly,  Westminster,  471,  472. 

Astruc,  Jean,  Biblical  critic,  528. 

Ataulf,  Visigoth,  131. 

Athanasius,  theologian,  bishop  of 
Alexandria,  life,  117-125;  motives, 
118;  monasticism,  138;  subordina 
tion,  74,  180;  see  also  143,  144,  146, 
158. 

Athenagoras,  Apologist,  50. 


Atonement,  the,  views  of  Origen,  82; 
Augustine,  181;  Anselm,  263,  264; 
Abelard,  265;  Aquinas,  272;  Calvin, 
393;  Socinians,  453;  Grotius,  456; 
Edwards,  573. 

Attila,  conqueror,  132. 

Attis,  worship  of,  10. 

Atto,  archbishop  of  Milan,  228. 

Augsburg,  Confession  of,  see  Confession. 

Augsburg,  Peace  of,  see  Peace. 

August,  Elector  of  Saxony,  443. 

Augustine,  missionary  to  England,  198. 

Augustine,  theologian,  early  life,  175- 
177;  Neo-Platonism,  177-179,  5,  107; 
conversion,  177,  178;  later  life,  178; 
mysticism,  179;  Confessions,  179; 
on  the  Trinity,  179,  180;  man's  fallen 
state,  181,  182;  grace,  182;  the  church 
182,  183;  sacraments,  183,  184;  the 
City  of  God,  184,  207,  212,  229; 
Pelagian  controversy,  178,  182,  185- 
192;  purgatory,  193;  influence  on 
Scholasticism,  269;  study  of,  revived, 
279,  298,  327;  Luther,  337-339;  see 
also  138,  168,  210,  211,  255,  262,  271, 
330,  332,  453,  481,  484,  556,  557. 

Augustinus  Triumphus,  papal  advo 
cate,  295. 

Augustus,  Emperor,  8,  15,  206,  217. 

Aurelian,  Emperor,  84,  87,  104,  129; 
decides  against  Paul  of  Samosata,  73, 
106. 

Aurelius,  bishop  of  Carthage,  186, 

Authari,  King,  192. 

Auxentius,  bishop  of  Milan.  140. 

Averroes,  philosopher,  282. 

Awakening,  the  Great,  511,  570,  571, 
578. 

Bacon,  Sir  Francis,  philosopher,  483. 

Baldwin,  Emperor,  243. 

Baldwin  I,  King,  Crusader,  240,  241. 

Baldwin  II,  King,  Crusader,  241,  243. 

Ballou,  Hosea,  Universalist,  576,  577. 

Bancroft,  Richard,  archbishop  of  Can 
terbury,  462-465. 

Baptism,  general  view,  93-97;  primi 
tive,  24;  foundation  of  the  church, 
42,  43,  94;  in  name  of  Christ  or  of 
the  Trinity,  58,  95;  instruction  be 
fore,  61 ;  cleanses  previous  sins,  68,  95; 
necessary  for  salvation,  94 ;  mode  of, 
96;  combined  with  confirmation,  96; 
separated  from  confirmation,  166, 167; 
infant  baptism,  95,  96;  sponsors,  96; 
by  whom  administered,  96,  97 ;  valid, 
97;  Augustine,  182,  183;  Aquinas, 
273. 

Baptists,  see  also  Anabaptists,  English, 
367,  368,  465,  466,  472,  477,  478,  519, 
550;  immersion,  466;  in  America, 
566-570,  579-581,  585,  586,  589; 
missions,  523. 

Barlow,  William,  bishop,  414. 


INDEX 


607 


Barnabas,  epistle  of,  42,  62. 

Barnabas,  missionary,  27-29. 

Baro,  Peter,  Arminian  views,  463. 

Barrowe,  Henry,  Congregationalist, 
463. 

Bartholomew,  massacre  of  St.,  435,  438. 

Basil,  bishop  of  Ancyra,  123. 

Basil,  Emperors,  I,  236;  II,  236. 

Basil,  the  Great,  bishop  and  theologian, 
125-127,  137,  138,  197,  330. 

Basilides,  Gnostic,  56,  77,  169. 

Baur,  F.  C.,  historian  and  New  Testa 
ment  critic,  536,  539,  541,  543. 

Baxter,  Richard,  Puritan,  474. 

Bayazid  II,  Sultan,  318. 

Beaton,  David,  Scottish  cardinal,  416. 

Beaton,  James,  archbishop  of  St.  An 
drews,  416. 

Beatrice,  countess  of  Tuscany,  225,  226, 
230. 

Becket,  Thomas,  archbishop  of  Can 
terbury,  286. 

Bede,  historian,  200,  261. 

Beecher,  Lyman,  preacher  and  re 
former,  583. 

Beghards,  the,  260. 

Beguines,  the,  260,  283. 

Belisarius,  general,  133. 

Bellamy,  Joseph,  New  England  theo 
logian,  572. 

Benedict,  of  Aniane,  monastic  re 
former,  218,  219. 

Benedict,  of  Nursia,  monastic  re 
former,  138;  his  "Rule,"  139,  218, 
219,  246. 

Benedict,  Popes,  V,  272;  VIII,  218; 
IX,  218,  221.  222;  X,  226;  XI,  291; 
XIII,  298,  308,  309;  XIV,  555;  XV, 
564. 

Benedictines,  138,  139,  218,  219. 

Bengel,  Johann  Albrecht,  Biblical 
scholar,  528. 

Berengar  II,  King  of  Italy,  217. 

Berengar,  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  262, 
263,  265. 

Berhta,  Queen  of  Kent,  198. 

Berkeley,  George,  philosopher  and 
bishop,  489,  507. 

Bern,  Reformation  in,  363,  386. 

Bernard,  of  Clairvaux,  life  and  teach 
ings,  246-248,  265;  Second  Crusade, 
242;  Luther,  337,  338;  see  also  249, 
266. 

Bernhard,  of  Saxe-Weimar,  general, 
449. 

Berno,  abbot  of  Cluny,  219. 

Berquin,  Louis  de,  Protestant  mar 
tyr,  331,  390. 

Bessarion,  bishop  of  Nicaea,  cardinal 
and  humanist,  311,  312,  315. 

Beukelssen,  Jan,  Anabaptist,  375. 

Beza,  Theodore,  reformer,  401,  422, 
432. 

Biandrata,  Giorgio,  Unitarian,  451,  452. 


Bible,  reading  of,  prohibited,  253. 

Biddle,  John,  Unitarian,  494. 

Biel,  Gabriel,  theologian,  338. 

Bilson,  Thomas,  bishop,  Anglican  con 
troversialist,  462. 

Bishops,  in  Jerusalem,  ?  24;  collegiate, 
45,  46;  monarchical,  47;  apostolical 
succession,  48;  the  Gnostic  struggle. 
59-61;  Rome,  64;  Cyprian,  70,  89; 
guardians  of  the  faith,  88;  discipline, 
88;  city  and  country  bishops,  88; 
relative  rank,  89;  choice  and  ordina 
tion,  89,  90;  support,  91;  metro 
politans,  164,  165,  208,  209;  incomes, 
165;  under  Charlemagne,  208;  arch 
bishops,  209,  212;  English,  414; 
Danish,  384;  Swedish,  385;  Mora 
vian,  502-505;  Methodist,  517,  518. 

Blaurock,  Georg,  Anabaptist,  367,  369. 

Bobadilla,  Nicolas,  Jesuit,  425. 

Boccaccio,  humanist,  314. 

Bogomiles,  the,  235,  249. 

Bogue,  David,  missions,  523. 

Bohemund,  of  Taranto,  Crusader,  240. 

Bohler,  Peter,  Moravian,  512,  514. 

Bohme,  Jakob,  mystic,  451. 

Boleslaus  I,  King,  237. 

Boleyn,  Anne,  Queen,  402,  403,  405. 

Bolsec,  Jerome  Hermes,  contest  with 
Calvin,  398. 

Bonaventura,  theologian,  mystic,  261, 
270,  279. 

Boniface,  count  of  Africa,  132. 

Boniface,  missionary  bishop,  201-203, 
209. 

Boniface,  Popes,  II,  189;  VIII,  290-292; 
IX,  297. 

Booth,  William,  Salvation  Army,  551. 

Bora,  Katherine  von,  355,  356. 

Borgia,  Cesare,  318. 

Borgia,  Lucrezia,  318. 

Boris,  King  of  Bulgaria,  214. 

Boston,  Thomas,  Scottish  divine,  552. 

Bothwell,  James  Hepburn,  earl  of,  421. 

Botticelli,  painter,  316. 

Bousset,  Wilhelm,  cited,  31,  544. 

Bownde,  Nicholas,  the  Sabbath,  466. 

Bradford,  William,  Congregationalist, 
465,  466. 

Bray,  Guy  de,  reformer,  433. 

Bray,  Thomas,  Anglican  organizer,  508, 
566. 

Brethren  of  the  Common  Life,  the,  281, 
282. 

Brewster,  William,  Congregationalist, 
465,  466. 

Briconnet,  Guillaume,  bishop  of  Maux, 
331,  386,  390. 

Briggs,  Charles  Augustus,  Biblical 
scholar,  586. 

Browne,  Robert,  Congregationalist, 
461,  462. 

Bucer,  see  Butzer. 

Bude,  Guillaume,  scholar,  331,  390. 


608 


INDEX 


Bugenhagen,  Johann,  reformer,  349, 
364,  371,  384. 

Bullinger,  Heinrich,  reformer,  365. 

Burghley,  William  Cecil,  Lord,  413. 

Burgundians,  the,  130-134. 

Bushnell,  Horace,  Congregational  theo 
logian,  584. 

Butler,  Joseph,  bishop,  theologian,  487, 
489,  490,  507. 

Butzer,  Martin,  reformer,  341,  363, 
372,  376,  377,  386,  392,  394,  396,  410. 

Csecilian,  bishop  of  Carthage,  113. 

Caesarius,  bishop  of  Aries,  189,  193. 

Cajetanus,  Thomas  Vio,  cardinal,  342. 

Calixtus,  Popes,  I,  see  Kallistos;  II,  234; 
III,  316-318. 

Calvin,  John,  early  life,  389,  390;  con 
version,  391;  the  Institutes,  392,  394, 
396;  theology,  392-394;  in  Italy,  394, 
395;  early  stay  in  Geneva,  395; 
banished,  396;  in  Strassburg,  396; 
return  to  Geneva,  396;  ecclesiastical 
constitution,  396-398;  contests,  398, 
399;  with  Bolsec,  398;  with  Serve tus, 
399;  victory,  399,  400;  academy,  400; 
influence,  400;  death,  401;  see  also 
246,  366,  376,  411,  415,  417-419,  423, 
424,  431. 

Calvinism,  in  Germany,  443,  444,  450. 

Cameronians,  the,  477,  478. 

Campbell, 'Alexander,  Disciple,  581,  582. 

Campbell,  Thomas,  Disciple,  581. 

Campeggio,  Lorenzo,  papal  legate,  355, 
372. 

Campion,  Edmund,  Jesuit  martyr,  438. 

Cano,  Melchior,  theologian,  324,  428. 

Canon,  Marcion's,  57;  Muratorian,  62. 

Canon  law,  see  Law. 

Canstein,  K.  H.  of,  Bible  society,  500, 
521. 

Canute,  King,  236. 

Capito,  Wolfgang,  reformer,  363. 

Caracalla,  Emperor,  79,  84,  85. 

Caraccioli,  Galeazzo,  marquis  of  Vico, 
424. 

Caraffa,  Giovanni  Pietro,  later  Pope 
Paul  IV,  375,  423,  424,  428. 

Cardinals,  the,  origin  of,  222,  223;  re 
formed  by  Leo  IX,  223;  in  papal 
elections,  227. 

Carey,  William,  missionary,  522,  523. 

Caroli,  Pierre,  controversialist,  395. 

Carolina,  North  and  South,  colonial 
religious  conditions,  566. 

Carpzov,  J.  B.,  theologian,  498,  499. 

Carroll,  John,  archbishop,  573,  574, 
579. 

Carthusians,  the,  404. 

Cartwright,  Edmund,  inventor,  507. 

Cartwright,  Thomas,  Puritan,  459,  460. 

Castellio,  Sebastien,  toleration,  399. 

Catechism,  the  Heidelberg,  443,  455. 

Catechism,  the  Racovian,  452. 


Catechism,  the  Westminster,  472. 

Catechumens,  166,  167. 

Cathari,    the,    spread    and    teachings, 

249-251,  255;  crusade  against,  253- 

255,  288;  see  also  107,  235. 
Catherine,  of  Aragon,  Queen  of  Eng 
land,  402,  403,  405. 
Catherine  de,  Medici,  Queen  of  France, 

432,  435,  440. 

Catherine,  St.,  of  Siena,  297,  319. 
Catholic,  the  description,  59. 
Catholics,    English,    under    Elizabeth, 

438,  439. 

Celestine  I,  Pope,  147,  148. 
Celsus,    heathen    controversialist,    80, 

105. 

Celtes,  Conrad,  humanist,  328,  360. 
Cerdo,  Gnostic,  56. 
Chalcedon,  Council  and  creed  of,  see 

Council,  Creed. 
Chalmers,    Thomas,    Scottish    leader, 

554. 

Chandieu,  Antoine,  Calvinist,  431. 
Channing,  W.  E.f  Unitarian,  577. 
Charlemagne,  Emperor,  life  and  work, 

205-208;  relation  to  the  church,  207- 

209;  see  also  132,  139,  210-212,  216- 

218,  234,  285,  326,  346. 
Charles,  the  Bald,  Emperor,  210. 
Charles,  the  Bold,  duke  of  Burgundy, 

326. 

Charles  III,  duke  of  Savoy,  388. 
Charles  IV,  Emperor,  302. 
Charles  V,  Emperor,  election,  346;  at 

Worms,  347,  348;  at  Augsburg,  371- 

373;   reunion  efforts,   376,   396;   his 

great  plan,   375-379;   the   Interims, 

380;  failure,   381,   382;  death,   382; 

see  also  322,  324,  326,  329,  343,  351, 

356,  392,  402,  403,  407,  411,  423,  427, 

430,  433. 
Charles,  Kings  of  England,  I,  policy, 

468-470;    the    civil    war,    470-472; 

executed,   473;   II,   restoration  and 

policy,  473-475,  480. 
Charles,  Kings  of  France,  V,  307;  VII, 

313;  VIII,  318,  320;  IX,  432,  435, 

436. 
Charles  Martel,  ruler  of  the  Franks, 

160,  200-203,  208. 

Charles  of  Anjou,  Naples,  288,  289. 
Chauncy,  Charles,  Liberal,  573. 
Chemnitz,  Martin,  theologian,  443. 
Cheyne,  T.  K.,  Biblical  scholar,  546. 
Choiseul,  duke  of,  557. 
Christ,    life   and   teaching,   14-20;  see 

Christology. 
Christian,  Kings  of  Denmark,  II,  383- 

385;  III,  383,  384;  IV,  447;  VI,  504. 
Christmas,  celebration  of,  169. 
Christology,     primitive,    23,    24,    35; 

Pauline,  36,  37;  the  synoptics,  37,  38; 

John,  38,  39;  Hermas,  39,  72;  Justin 

Martyr,    51,    52;     Gnostic,    53-55; 


INDEX 


609 


Marcion,  56,  57;  Irenseus,  66;  Ter- 
tullian,  69,  71,  75,  114;  Logos 
Christology,  see  Logos;  Monarchians, 
72-75;  Paul  of  Samosata,  72,  73; 
Sabellius,  73,  74;  Hippolytus.  74,  75; 
Kallistos,  75;  Novatian,  75-76; 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  78;  Origen, 
81,  82;  €he  Arian  controversy,  114- 
128;  the  great  Christological  con 
troversies,  143-161;  Apollinaris,  144; 
school  of  Antioch,  144,  145;  Nes- 
torius,  145,  146;  Cyril,  146;  "Mother 
of  God,"  146-148;  Eutyches,  150; 
Chalcedon,  151,  152;  Monophysites, 
153;  Leontius,  155;  Augustine,  179- 
181;  Elipandus  and  Felix,  207; 
Paulician,  235;  Cathari,  249,  250; 
Eckhart,  280;  Servetus,  399;  Socin- 
ian,  452,  453;  Moravian,  505,  506; 
Hegelian,  535;  Ritschlian,  543. 

Chrodegang,  bishop  of  Metz,  209. 

Chrysippus,  Stoic  philosopher,  6. 

Chrysoloras,  Manuel,  Greek  scholar 
ship.  315. 

,  Chry_sijsJtoin7>  career  'and  services,  141, 
142;  see  also  146,  169,  188,  330. 

Church,  the,  early  use  of  name,  22,  23 ; 
by  Paul,  32;  early  conceptions,  42, 
43;  primitive  organization,  23;  char 
ismatic  leaders,  44;  development  of 
officers,  45-48;  the  name  "Catholic," 
59;  the  Catholic  Church,  59-63; 
Cyprian  on,  70,  71;  organization  in 
the  third  century,  87-91;  of  whom 
composed,  102;  experiential  Chris 
tians,  102;  an  agency  for  salvation, 
103;  Constantino  brings  freedom, 
108,  112;  property,  165;  States  of 
the  church,  204;  Prankish  church, 
208,  209;  Augustine  on,  182,  183; 
Marsilius  of  Padua  on,  294;  Wyclif 
on,  299,  300;  Huss  on,  303;  Prierio 
on,  342;  Luther  on,  351,  352;  Cal 
vin  on,  394;  Lutheran,  357,  358,  371; 
Anabaptist,  368;  Congregational, 
461. 

Church,  the  Catholic  Apostolic,  550. 

Church,  the  Jansenist,  557. 

Church  of  England,  in  American  col 
onies,  565-569;  organized  as  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  and  bishops 
secured,  574,  575;  divisions,  584,  585; 
growth,  585;  proposed  world  confer 
ence,  589. 

Cid,  the,  239. 

Cimabue,  painter,  316. 

Cistercians,  the,  245,  246. 

Clark,  Francis  E.,  Christian  Endeavor, 
588. 

Clarke,  Samuel,  Arian,  494. 

Claudius,  Emperor,  26. 

Claudius  Gothicus,  Emperor,  129. 

Cleanthes,  Stoic  philosopher,  6,  7. 

Clemanges,  Nicholas  of,  307. 


Clemens,  Flavius,  consul,  33. 
Clement,    of    Alexandria,    theologian, 

life  and  teaching,  77-79,  83. 
Clement,  of  Rome,   Apostolic  Father, 

35,  36,  42,  46,  48,  61,  63,  89. 
Clement,  Popes,  II,  222;  III,  Counter- 
Pope,  231,  232,  sec  Wibert;  IV,  289; 

V,  284,  291,  292,  295;   VI,  294   (VII, 

Avignon,    297,    298);   VII,   354-357, 

372,  375,  402,  403,  422;  XIV,  558. 
Clement,  Second,  sermon,  42,  102. 
Cleomenes,  Christology,  73. 
Clerc,  Jean  le,  Biblical  scholar,  528. 
Clergy,   distinguished   from  laity,   89; 

major  and  minor  orders,  90,  91 ;  legal 

exemptions,  112. 
Clerical   celibacy   and   marriage,    104, 

162,  165,  166,  213,  232,  547. 
Clovis,  Frankish  King,' 133,  134,  200. 
Cluny,  monastery,  founded,  219;  aims, 

219-221. 

Coccejus,  Johann,  theologian,  472. 
Coelestius,  Pelagian,  186,  187. 
Coke,   Thomas,   Methodist,   517,   518, 

575. 

C.olenso,  J.  W.,  bishop,  546. 
Coleridge,  Samuel  Taylor,  philosopher, 

545,  584. 
Colet,  John,  humanist,  315,  329,  331, 

401. 
Coligny,  Gaspard  de,  Huguenot,  432, 

433,  435. 

Collins,  Anthony,  Deist,  487. 
Colloquy,  the  Marburg,  370. 
Colman,  British  bishop,  199. 
Colonna,  Sciarra,  adventurer,  291. 
Columba,  missionary  to  Scotland,  196. 
Columbanus,  missionary  to  the  Conti 
nent,  197. 

Comgall,  Irish  founder,  197. 
Commodus,  Emperor,  49,  84,  85. 
Compton,   Henry,   bishop  of  London, 

508. 
Concordats,  papal,  of  Worms,  234, 

285;   with   Ferdinand   and   Isabella, 

322;  with  Francis  I,  319,  321;  with 

Napoleon,  558,  559. 
Conde,  Louis,  prince  of,  432,  433. 
Confession,  public,   100,   101;  private, 

197,  208,  352;  required,  275,  288. 
Confession,    the   Augsburg,    371,    373, 

383,  386,  444,  505. 
Confession,  the  Belgic,  433,  456. 
Confession,  the  Westminster,  471,  472, 

478. 

Confirmation,  development  of ,  166, 167. 
Congregationalists,     the,     origin     and 

principles,    460-463;    emigration    to 

Holland  and  America,  465,  466,  469; 

see  also  for  England,  472,  473,  477, 

495,  519,  523,  550;  in  America,  567, 

568,  570,  579,  580,  589. 
Conrad,  Kings  and  Emperors,  I,  216; 

II,  218,  221;  III,  242;  IV,  288,  289. 


610 


INDEX 


Conrad,  of  Gelnhausen,  conciliar 
theory,  307. 

Conrad,  of  Waldhausen,  Bohemian 
preacher,  302. 

Conradin,  executed,  289. 

Constans,  Emperors,  I,  119-121;  II, 
160,  161. 

Constantino,  donation  of,  204,  205, 
212,  315. 

Constantino  I,  Emperor,  a  Christian, 
108,  110;  struggle,  109-111;  the 
Edict  of  Milan,  111;  policy  toward 
the  church,  112,  113,  165,  170,  171; 
Donatists,  113,  114;  Arians,  114-119; 
baptism,  95,  119;  death,  119;  see  also 
10,  120,  128,  129,  136,  222,  237. 

Constantino,  Emperors,  II,  119;  IV, 
161;  V,  162,  235;  VI,  163. 

Constantinople,  foundation  of,  112; 
captured  by  Crusaders,  243,  267, 
268;  by  Turks,  285,  312,  315. 

Constantius  Chlorus,  108,  109. 

Constantius,  Emperor,  119-125. 

Contarini,  Gasparo,  cardinal,  375,  376, 
423-425. 

Cook,  James,  discoverer,  522. 

Coornhert,  Dirck,  Dutch  scholar,  454. 

Cop,  Guillaume,  humanist,  390. 

Cop,  Nicolas,  friend  of  Calvin,  391. 

Copernicus,  Nicolaus,  astronomer,  483. 

Cordier,  Mathurin,  scholar,  389. 

Cornelius,  bishop  of  Rome,  102. 

Cotton,  John,  Congregationalist,  469. 

Council,  of  Basel,  305,  310-312,  316, 
327. 

Council,  of  Chalcedon  (451)  (Fourth 
General),  135, 149, 151-153, 157, 159, 
171. 

Council,  of  Constance,  308-311;  and 
Huss,  304,  305;  see  also  313,  317,  327, 
343. 

Council,  of  Constantinople  (381)  (Sec 
ond  General),  127,  144. 

Council,  of  Constantinople  (553)  (Fifth 
General),  83,  157,  161. 

Council,  of  Constantinople  (680-681) 
(Sixth  General),  161,  162. 

Council,  of  Elvira,  105. 

Council,  of  Ephesus  (431)  (Third  Gen 
eral),  148,  149,  171,  188. 

Council,  of  Ephesus  (449),  the  "Synod 
of  Robbers,"  150,  151. 

Council,  of  Ferrara  and  Florence,  311, 
312,  315. 

Council,  Fourth  Lateran,  255;  confes 
sion  required,  275,  288;  transub- 
stantiation,  263,  274,  288. 

Council,  of  Nicaea  (325)  (First  General), 
115-117;  see  also  76,  135,  164. 

Council,  of  Nicsea  (787)  (Seventh  Gen 
eral),  163,  172,  207. 

Council,  of  Pisa,  303,  307,  308. 

Council,  of  Sardica,  121,  135. 

Council,  of  Toledo,  134,  180. 


Council,  of  Trent,  378,  380,  381,  427. 
428. 

Council,  the  conciliar  theory,  294,  307- 
311. 

Council,  Third  Lateran,  251. 

Council,  Vatican,  561. 

Council,  Vienne,  284. 

Counsels,  of  Perfection,  see  Superero 
gation. 

Counter-Reformation,  the,  antece 
dents,  321,  322;  course,  422-430;  see 
also  355,  434,  444-446,  555. 

Courtenay,  William,  bishop  of  London, 
299. 

Covenanters,  the,  470,~471,  477,  478. 

Coverdale,  Miles,  bishop  and  trans 
lator,  406,  414. 

Cowper,  William,  poet,  520. 

Cranmer,  Thomas,  archbishop  of  Can 
terbury,  403,  405,  406,  409-412. 

.Creed,  the  Apostles',  61,  76. 
Screed,  of  Chalcedon,  151-153;  see  also 

153-157,  271. 
,  Creed,  the  Nicene,  116,  128. 

Creed,  Nicene-Constantinopolitan,  128, 
151,  208. 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  protector,  472,  473. 

Cromwell,  Richard,  protector,  473. 

Cromwell,  Thomas,  Henry  VIII 's 
agent,  404,  406,  407. 

Crusades,  the,  238-245;  First,  239-241; 
Kingdom  of  Jerusalem,  241,  242; 
military  orders,  241,  242;  Second, 

242,  247,  249;  Third,  243;  Fourth, 

243,  288;  Childrens',  244;  later  ef 
forts,  244;  results,  244,  245. 

Cues,  Nicholas  of,  scholar,  205,  327. 

Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church,  the, 
580. 

Cutler,  Timothy,  Episcopalian,  568. 

Cybele,  worship  of,  10. 

Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage,  life  and 
teachings,  70,  71;  on  baptism,  95,  97; 
on  the  Lord's  Supper,  99 ;  see  also  73, 
87,  90-92,  101,  173,  175,  193. 

Cyril,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  128. 

Cyril,  missionary,  214. 

Cyril,  theologian,  bishop  of  Alexan 
dria,  146-150,  153;  theology,  154- 
157,  171;  see  also  163,  167,  168,  172, 
330. 

Damasus,  Popes,  I,  127,  174;  II,  222. 

Dante  Alighieri,  poet,  277,  293. 

Darby,  John  Nelson,  Plymouth  Breth 
ren,  551. 

Darnley,  Henry  Stewart,  Lord,  420, 
421. 

Darwin,  Charles  Robert,  scientist,  552. 

Davenport,  John,  Congregationalist, 
469. 

David,  Christian,  Moravian,  503,  504. 

Deaconesses,  91. 

Deacons,  early,  23,  45-47,  90. 


INDEX 


611 


Dead,  prayers  for,  93. 

Decius,  Emperor,  persecution  under, 
86,  101,  129. 

Decretals,  the  Pseudo-Isidorian,  212, 
213. 

Deism,  487-492;  see  also  524-526;  in 
America,  572. 

Demetrius,   bishop  of  Alexandria,  79. 

Democritus,  5. 

Denk,  Johann,  Anabaptist  Unitarian, 
369,  451,  494. 

Denmark,  Reformation  in,  382-384. 

Descartes,  Ren6,  philosopher,  483-485. 

Desiderius,  Lombard  King,  205. 

Deusdedit,  cardinal,  229. 

Dictatus,  papal  claims,  229. 

Didache,  see  Teaching. 

Diego,  bishop  of  Osma,  255. 

Diocletian,  Emperor,  career  and  char 
acter,  108,  109;  persecution,  87,  102, 
109,  113;  see  also  84,  129. 

Diodorus,  of  Tarsus,  theologian,  141, 
144,  145. 

Diognetus,  the  Epistle  to,  42,  50. 

Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  105. 

Dionysius,  bishop  of  Rome,  76. 

Dionysius,  writings,  see  Pseudo-Dio- 
nysius. 

Dioscurus,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  149- 
151,  153. 

Disciples  of  Christ,  the,  581,  582,  586, 
589. 

Discipline,  the  secret,  92,  167. 

Dissenters,  English,  476,  477,  550. 

Dober,  Leonhard,  Moravian  mission 
ary,  503,  504. 

Dollinger,  J.  J.  I.  von,  561. 

Dominic,  monastic  founder,  255,  256, 
424. 

Dominicans,  the,  254-256,  259,  260, 
335,  336,  341;  in  America,  565. 

Domitian,  Emperor,  34. 

Domitilla,  Flavia,  33. 

Donatello,  sculptor,  316. 

Donation  of  Constantino,  see  Constan 
tino. 

Donattsts,  the,  113-115,  128,  178,  183. 

Donatus,  the  Great,  113. 

Dorner,  J.  A.,  theologian,  538,  539. 

Drake,  Sir  Francis,  439. 

Driver,  S.  R.,  Biblical  scholar,  546. 

Dudley,  Guilford,  English  conspirator, 
411. 

Dwight,  Timothy,  New  England  theo 
logian,  572. 

Easter,  controversy,  64,  65;  Roman 
date  approved,  113,  117;  see  also  93, 
169,  199. 

Ebionitas,  the,  39. 

Eck,  Johann  Maier,  of,  Roman  cham 
pion,  341,  343,  344,  346,  364,  366, 
372,  376. 

Eckhart,  mystic,  256,  280-282. 


Edict  of  Milan,  the,  111,  112. 

Edict  of  Nantes,  the,  441,  556. 

Edict  of  Restitution,  the,  447,  449,  450. 

Edward,  Kings  of  England,  I,  244,  290; 
III,  298;  VI,  408-411,  414,  416,  457. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  theologian,  571, 
572. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  Jr.,  theologian, 
572,  573. 

Edwin,  King,  198,  199. 

Egmont,  count  of,  434. 

Egypt,  Coptic  Church  of,  157,  158. 

Eichhorn,  J.  G.,  Biblical  critic,  528. 

Einarsen,  Gisser,  bishop,  in  Iceland, 
384. 

Einhard,  scholar,  207. 

Elagabalus,  Emperor,  85. 

Eliot,  John,  missionary,  522,  567. 

Elipandus,  bishop  of  Toledo,  207. 

Elizabeth,  Queen  of  England,  religious 
settlement,  413-415;  deposed  by  the 
Pope,  434,  438;  treatment  of  Cath 
olics,  437;  plots  and  Armada,  438, 
439;  religious  policy,  457,  458;  the 
Puritans,  458-464;  see  also  403,  417, 
420,  422,  471,  494. 

Elizabeth,  St.,  260. 

Embury,  Philip,  Methodist,  517. 

Emlyn,  Thomas,  Unitarian,  494. 

Emmanuel  Philibert,  duke  of  Savoy, 
400. 

Emmons,  Nathanael,  theologian,  573. 

Emperor- worship,  see  Worship. 

Empire,  Holy  Roman,  inaugurated, 
217. 

Engelbrektsson.  Olaf,  bishop,  384. 

Ennius,  Roman  poet,  6. 

Ennodius,  bishop  of  Pavia,  135. 

Epicureanism,  see  Epicurus. 

Epicurus,  philosopher,  5-7. 

Epigonus,  Christology,  73. 

Epiphanius,  bishop  of  Salamis,  128. 

Episcopius,  Simon,  Arminian,  454. 

Erasmus,  Desiderius,  humanist,  329, 
330;  Greek  Testament,  324,  330;  the 
Fathers,  330;  theology,  330;  quarrel 
with  Luther,  352,  353,  356;  see  also 
349,  360,  391,  401. 

Ernesti,  J.  A.,  Biblical  scholar,  528. 

Erskine,  Ebenezer,  Scottish  leader,  553. 

Estoile,  Pierre  de  1',  jurist,  390. 

Eucharist,  see  Lord's  Supper. 

Eudoxia,  Empress,  142,  147. 

Eugene,  Popes,  III,  247;  IV,  310-312, 
316,  317. 

Euhemerus,  teaching,  6. 

Eusebius,  bishop  of  Caesarea,  historian, 
116,  174. 

Eusebius,  bishop  of  Dorylseum,  150. 

Eusebius,  bishop  of  Nicomedia,  Arian 
leader,  115-120,  130. 

Eusebius,  bishop  of  Vercelli,  138. 

Eustace,  Crusader,  240. 

Eustathius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  118. 


612 


INDEX 


Eutyches,    controversialist,    150,    153, 

154. 
Evangelicals,    the    English,    519-523, 

544,  546. 
Evolution,  552. 
Exorcists,  90,  91. 

Fabian,  bishop  of  Rome,  martyr,  86, 
90,  101. 

Farel,  Guillaume,  reformer,  331,  386- 
389,  391,  395,  396. 

Farrar,  F.  W.,  broad-church,  546. 

Fathers,  the  Apostolic,  42,  53. 

Faustus,  bishop  of  Riez,  189. 

Faustus,  Manichaean,  176. 

Federal  Council  of  Churches,  Amer 
ican,  588,  589. 

Felix,  bishop  of  Urgel,  207. 

Felix,  Popes,  III,  135;  V  (Counter- 
Pope),  312. 

Fell,  Margaret,  Quaker,  479. 

Ferdinand,  Emperors,  I  (brother  of 
Charles  V),  355,  358,  381;  II,  446- 
448,  450;  III,  450. 

Ferdinand,  Spanish  Kings,  I  of  Castile, 
239;  the  "Catholic"  of  Aragon,  283, 
318,  322-324,  326,  402;  see  Isa 
bella. 

Feudalism,  influence  of,  210. 

Fichte,  J.  G.,  philosopher,  534,  545. 

Ficino,  Marsilio,  philosopher,  315. 

Field,  John,  Puritan,  460. 

Filioque,  clause,  the,  208,  213,  312 

Finian,  of  Clonard,  Irish  monk,  196. 

Firmilian,  bishop  of  Caesarea,  97. 

Firmin,  Thomas,  Unitarian,  494. 

Fisher,  John,  bishop  of  Rochester,  401, 
404, 

Fitz,  Richard,  Congregationalist,  461. 

Flacius,  Matthias  (Illyricus),  Lutheran 
historian,  380,  442. 

Flavian,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
149-151. 

Fletcher,  John  William,  of  Madeley, 
516. 

Forge,  Estienne  de  la,  Protestant  mar 
tyr,  392. 

Forgiveness,  see  Sins. 

Formosus,  Pope,  215. 

Formula  of  Concord,  the  Lutheran,  443, 
444. 

Fox,  George,  Quaker,  478-480. 

Francis,  Kings  of  France,  I,  319,  320, 
343,  354,  356,  376,  390-392,  407,  416; 
,11,  409,  413,  418,  419,  431,  432. 

Francis  II,  Emperor,  559. 

Francis,  of  Assisi,  255,  257-260,  424. 

Franciscans,    the,    258-261;    the    Ter- 
tiaries,  260;  divisions,  260,  261;  in 
America,  565. 
Francke,    August    Hermann,    Pietist, 

498-502. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  492. 
Franks,  the,  conversion  of,  133,  134, 


136;  and  the  papacy,  191,  195,  200- 

208;  see  also  130,  131. 
Frederick,  Electors  Palatine,  III,  443; 

IV,  445;  V  (King  of  Bohemia),  446, 

450. 
Frederick,  Emperors,   I    (Barbarossa) , 

243,  248,  285,  286;  II,  244,  269,  287, 

288;  III,  325. 
Frederick,  Kings  of  Denmark,  I,  383; 

IV,  500. 
Frederick,  Kings  of  Prussia,  I,  499;  II 

(the  Great),  492,  526. 
Frederick,  of  Austria,  280,  293. 
Frederick,  of  Lorraine,  Pope  Stephen, 

IX,  224. 
Frederick,  the  Wise,  Elector  of  Saxony, 

333,  338,  342,  343,  347,  348,  350,  355. 
Frederick  William,  the  "Great  Elec 
tor,"  450. 
Frederick  William  I,  King  of  Prussia, 

525. 

Frelinghuysen,  T.  J.,  American  re 
vivals,  569,  570. 

Frith,  John,  Protestant  martyr,  406. 
Fritigern,  Visigoth,  130. 
Froment,  Antoine,  reformer,  388. 
Froude,    R.    H.,   Anglo-Catholic,   547, 

548. 

Fructuosus,  martyr,  87. 
Frumentius,  missionary,  158. 
Furbity,  Guy,  Roman  champion,  388. 

Gaiseric,  Vandal  chief,  132. 

Galerius,  Emperor,  108-110. 

Galileo  Galilei,  scientist,  483. 

Galle,  Peter,  Roman  champion,  385. 

Gallienus,  Emperor,  87,  104. 

Gallus,  Emperor,  86. 

Gallus,  missionary,  197. 

Gamaliel,  26. 

Garibaldi,  Giuseppe,  562. 

Gaunilo,  reply  to  Anselm,  263. 

Gelasius,  Pope,  135. 

Geneva,  before  Calvin,  387-389;  Cal 
vin's  work  in,  395-400. 

Gentile,  Giovanni,  radical,  451. 

George,  bishop  of  Laodicea,  123. 

George,  duke  of  Saxony,  374,  377. 

George,  of  Brandenburg-Ansbach,  355, 
359,  371. 

Georgia,  colonial  religious  conditions, 
567. 

Gerhard,  Johann,  theologian,  444. 

Gerhard,  of  Brogne,  monastic  reformer, 
220. 

Gerhardt,  Paul,  hymn- writer,  451. 

German  "Reformed"  Churches,  444. 

German  Theology,  the,  281. 

Germanus,  bishop  of  Auxerre,  195. 

Gersdorff,  Katherine  von,  502. 

Gerson,  Jean  de,  theologian,  307,  308. 

Gibbon,  Edward,  historian,  493. 

Gillespie,  Thomas,  Scottish  leader,  553. 

Giotto,  painter,  316. 


INDEX 


613 


Gnosticism,  causes,  39;  teaching,  53- 
56;  Catholic  reply,  60-64;  a  "Chris 
tian  Gnosticism,"  77,  78;  also  235. 

God,  "Friends  of,"  281. 

Godfrey,  archbishop  of  Milan,  228. 

Godfrey,  of  Bouillon,  Crusader,  240, 
241. 

Godfrey,  of  Lorraine,  count  of  Tuscany, 
225,  226. 

Goethe,  J.  W.  von,  poet,  527,  530,  532. 

Gomarus,  Franz,  theologian,  454,  456. 

Gordian,  Emperor,  85. 

Gospels,  written,  34,  35,  60;  as  "Scrip 
ture,"  61,  62,  67;  Baur  on  the,  536, 
537. 

Gottschalk,  monk,  211. 

Grace,  Tertullian  on,  68,  69;  Augustine, 
182;  Aquinas,  272-274;  Calvin,  393. 

Granvella,  cardinal,  statesman,  433, 
434. 

Gratian,  Canonist,  292. 

Gratian,  Emperor,  127,  128. 

Gravitation,  483,  552. 

Grebel,  Conrad,  Anabaptist,  366. 

Greenwood,  John,  Congregationalist, 
463,  466. 

Gregorian  Church,  see  Armenia. 

Gregory,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  120, 
121. 

Gregory,  of  Nazianzus,  preacher,  theo 
logian,  125-127,  146.  167,  169,  174. 

Gregory,  of  Nyssa,  theologian,  125- 
127,  168. 

Gregory,  Popes,  I  (the  Great),  190-193; 
papal  claims,  191 ;  conversion  of  Eng 
land,  192,  198;  theology,  192,  193; 
the  Franks,  191,  200;  see  also  157, 
212,  222,  262;  II,  201,  212;  III.  162, 
201-203;  V,  217;  VI,  221,  223;  VII, 
see  Hildebrand;  IX,  244,  254,  258, 
259,  288.  292;  X,  290;  XI,  297-299; 
XII,  298,  303,  308,  309;  XV,  430. 

Gregory,  the  "Illuminator,"  158. 

Grey,  Lady  Jane,  411. 

Gribaldi,  Matteo,  radical,  451. 

Grindal,  Edmund,  archbishop  of  Can 
terbury,  460,  462. 

Groot,  Gerhard,  mystic,  281. 

Grotius,  Hugo,  publicist,  theologian, 
455-457,  486,  573. 

Guido,  of  Spoleto,  215. 

Guise,  Charles,  cardinal  of  Lorraine, 
431,  432. 

Guise,  Francis,  duke  of,  432,  433 
435. 

Guise,  Mary  of  Lorraine,  regent  of 
Scotland,  416-418. 

Gustavus  Adolphus,  King  of  Sweden, 
447-449. 

Hadrian,  Emperor,  25,  49,  50,  73. 
Hadrian  IV,  pope,  248. 
Haetzer,   Ludwig,    Anabaptist   Unita 
rian,  369,  451,  494. 


Hakon  I,  King  of  Norway,  236. 

Hallet,  Joseph,  Arian,  494. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  583. 

Hamilton,  Patrick,  burned,  416. 

Harding,  Stephen,  Cistercian,  246. 

Hargreaves,  James,  inventor,  507. 

Harnack,  Adolf  von,  historian,  cited, 
19,  46,  170,  543. 

Harold,  King  of  Denmark,  236. 

Harris,  Howell,  Revivalist,  513. 

Harrison,  Robert,  Congregationalist, 
461. 

Haweis,  Thomas,  Missions,  523. 

Hegel,  G.  W.  F.,  philosopher,  534-536, 
539. 

Hegius,  Alexander,  humanist,  327: 

Heinrich,  duke  of  Saxony,  379. 

Heinrich,  of  Langenstein,  conciliar 
theory,  307. 

Heinrich  XXIX,  of  Reuss,  502. 

Heloise  (Abelard),  264. 

Helvidius,  175. 

Helwys,  Thomas,  Baptist,  465. 

Hengstenberg,  E.  W.,  theologian,  537. 

Henoticon,  the,  135,  154. 

Henry,  duke  of  Guise,  435,  436,  440. 

Henry,  German  Kings  and  Emperors, 
I  (the  Fowler),  216,  218;  II,  218,  221; 
III,  rescues  the  papacy,  221-225;  see 
also  218,  223;  IV,  contest  with  the 
papacy,  228-233;  Canossa,  230;  see 
also  239;  V,  233,  234;  VI,  286,  287. 

Henry,  Kings  of  England,  I,  233,  234; 
II,  286;  III,  288;  IV,  301;  V,  301; 
VII,  321;  VIII,  401-408;  desires 
marriage  annulled,  402;  marries 
Anne  Boleyn,  403 ;  breach  with  Rome, 
403,  404;  supreme  head,  404;  monas 
teries  confiscated,  404,  407;  religious 
attitude,  406,  407;  death,  408;  parties 
under,  408;  see  also  321,  331,  378, 
412-416,  457,  463. 

Henry,  Kings  of  France,  II,  381,  418, 
430,  431;  III,  436,  437,  440;  IV,  435, 
436,  440,  441,  445. 

Henry,  of  Lausanne,  radical,  248. 

Heraclitus,  philosopher,  3,  6,  52. 

Heraclius,  Emperor,  159,  160. 

Herbert,  Edward,  of  Cherbury,  Deist, 
487. 

Herder,  J.  G.  von,  inquirer,  532,  545. 

Hermann,  Wilhelm,  543. 

Hermas,  of  Rome,  The  Shepherd,  39  42- 
46,  62,  72,  100,  102,  103,  193. 

Herod  Agrippa,  24. 

Herod,  the  Great,  14,  24. 

High  Commission,  Court,  463,  470,  475 
477. 

Hilary,  bishop  of  Poitiers,  122,  123. 

Hildebrand,  Pope,  early  career,  223, 
224 ;  sub-deacon,  223 ;  the  real  leader, 
225-227;  Pope,  228-232;  Canossa. 
230;  aims,  229,  285;  crusade  pro 
posed,  239;  see  also  212,  220,  233. 


614 


INDEX 


Hincmar,  archbishop  of  Rheims,  210- 

213. 

Hippolytus,   Counter-Pope    and  theo 
logian,  74,  75,  79,  85. 
Hobbes,  Thomas,  philosopher,  486. 
Hochstraten,    Jakob,    inquisitor,    335, 

336. 

Hodgkin,  John,  bishop,  414. 
Hoen,  Cornelius,  Lord's  Supper,  364. 
Hoffmann,  Melchior,  Anabaptist,  374, 

375. 
Holtzmann,    H.    J.,    New    Testament 

scholar,  540. 
Holy  Spirit,  see  Spirit. 
Homoion  party,  the,  122. 
Homoiousion  party,  the,  123-125,  127, 

130. 

Homoousion  party,  the,  76,  116-128. 
Honorius,  Emperor,  131,  132,  187. 
Honorius,     Popes,     I,     160,     161;     II 

(Counter-Pope),  227;  III,  255. 
Hooker,  Richard,  Ecclesiastical  Polity, 

462,  463. 
Hooker,     Thomas,     Congregationalist, 

469. 

Hooper,  John,  bishop,  406,  412. 
Hopital,  Michel  de  1',  statesman,  432. 
Hopkey,  Sophy,  512. 
Hopkins,  Samuel,  theologian,  572. 
Horn,  count,  Netherlander,  434. 
Hosius,  bishop  of  Cordova,  115,  116, 

121,  122. 

Hospitallers,  the,  242. 
Howard,  John,  philanthropist,  520, 521. 
Hrabanus     Maurus,      archbishop     of 

Mainz,  scholar,  210,  211,  261. 
Hubmaier,  Balthasar,  Anabaptist,  366, 

367,  369. 

Hugh,  abbot  of  Cluny,  221,  224. 
Hugh,  of  Vermandois,  Crusader,  240. 
Hugh,  the  White,  cardinal,  223,  229. 
Hugo,  de  Payens,  Templar,  241. 
Hugo,   of  St.   Victor,   theologian  and 

mystic,  266,  267,  273,  279. 
Huguenots,  the,  431-441,  556,  558;  in 

America,  566,  569. 
Humbert,  cardinal,  223-225,  227. 
Hume,   David,  philosopher,  490,  491, 

530,  553. 

Humphrey,  Laurence,  Puritan,  458. 
Humphreys,  Joseph,  Methodist,  515. 
Hunting-don,  Selina,  countess  of,  516. 
Huss,   John,   Bohemian  reformer,  life 

and  teaching,  302-304,  306;  death, 

305,  309;  see  also  343. 
Hut,  Hans,  Anabaptist,  369,  374. 
Hutten,  Ulrich  von,  agitator,  336,  344. 

Ibas,  of  Edessa,  theologian,  149,  156. 

Iceland,  Reformation  in,  384. 

Ignatius,  Apostolic  Father  and  mar 
tyr,  40-42,  47,  48,  59,  63,  66,  96,  98. 

Ignatius,  of  Loyola,  founder  of  the 
Jesuits,  424-426,  429. 


Ignatius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 

213. 

Image  controversy,  the,  162,  163. 
Index,  Congregation  of  the,  428. 
Indulgences,    growth    of    theory    and 

practice,    276;    for   purgatory,    317; 

Huss,  304;  Luther,  340-343. 
Infant  baptism,  95,  96. 
Infant  communion,  99,  274. 
Ingersoll,  Robert  G.,  492. 
Innocent,  Popes,  I,  134,  135;  see  also 

142,  187,  190;  II,  247,  265;  III,  286- 

289;  also  243,  252-254,  258,  268,  283; 

IV,  254,  261,  288;  VI,  296;  VII,  298; 

VIII,  318,  333;  XI,  555;  XII,  555. 
Inquisition,     the,     established,     254; 

Spanish,  324;  world- wide,  424. 
Interims,  the,  380,  410. 
Investiture,  causes,  216,  224-226;  the 

struggle,  228-234. 
Irenseus,  theologian,  life  and  teaching, 

65-67;  reply  to  Gnosticism,  60,  61, 

63;  see  also  67,  71,  95,  98-100,  170, 

330. 

Irene,  Empress,  163. 
Irving,    Edward,    Catholic    Apostolic 

Church,  550. 
Isaac  II,  Emperor,  243. 
Isabella,    Queen   of   Castile,   322-324, 

326,  347,  402,  422. 
Isidore,  bishop  of  Seville,  193,  194. 
Isis,  worship  of,  10,  96. 
Ivo,  bishop  of  Chartres,  233. 

Jablonski,  Daniel  Ernst,  Hussite  bishop, 

502,  504. 

Jacob,  Henry,  Congregationalist,  466. 
Jacobite  Church,  the,  158. 
James,  Apostle,  24. 
James,  the  Lord's  brother,  24-28. 
James,  epistle  of,  34. 
James,  Kings  of  England  and  Scotland, 

I  (VI  of  Scotland),  policy,  464,  466, 

467;  bishops  in  Scotland,  467,  470; 

see  also  416, 421 ;  II  (VII  of  Scotland), 

475^78. 

James  V,  King  of  Scotland,  416. 
Janitors,  90,  91. 

Jansen,  Cornelius,  theologian,  556. 
Jansenism,  556,  557. 
Jansenist  Church,  557,  561. 
Jefferson,  Thomas,  492. 
Jerome,  of  Prague,  305. 
Jerome,  scholar,  life  and  work,  173-175; 

the  Vulgate,  174;  see  also  46, 138, 170, 

187,  188,  190,  330. 
Jesuits,  origin,  425-427;  abolished,  557, 

558;  restored,  559;  see  also  220,  429, 

430,    444,    445,    453,    556,    560;    in 

America,  565. 
Joachim,  of  Floris,  261. 
Joan  of  Arc,  312. 
Johan  III,  King  of  Sweden,  386. 
John,  Apostle,  23,  24,  28,  33. 


INDEX 


615 


John,  bishop  of  Antioch,  148. 

John,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  187. 

John    Cassianus,    monk    and    writer, 

188. 

John  Duns  Scotus,  see  Scotus. 
John  Fidanza,  see  Bonaventura. 
John  Frederick,  Elector  of  Saxony,  371, 

379,  407. 
John  George  III,  Elector  of  Saxony, 

499. 
John,  Gospel  of,  35,  38-40,  60,  62,  537, 

539,  540. 

John  Hyrcanus,  King  of  the  Jews,  13. 
John,    King    of    England,    287,    288, 

295. 

John,  of  Austria,  governor,  436. 
John,   of  Damascus,   theologian,    163, 

164. 

John,  of  Gaunt,  298,  299. 
John,  of  Janden,  publicist,  293. 
John,  of  Monte  Corvino,  missionary, 

284. 

John,  of  Paris,  political  theorist,  293. 
John,  Popes,  IV,  160;  VIII,  214;  XII, 

215,    217;    XIII,    217;    XIX,    218; 

XXII,  261,     278,     280*    292,     294; 

XXIII,  304.  308,  309. 

John,  Scotus  "Erigena,"  210. 

John,  the  Baptist,  16,  18,  20,  93,  94. 

John,   the   Faster,   patriarch   of  Con 
stantinople,  191. 

John,  the  "Steadfast,"  Elector  of 
Saxony,  355,  357-359,  371. 

John  Tzimiskes,  Emperor,  235,  236. 

John  III,  King  of  Portugal,  429. 

John  VIII,  Emperor,  311. 

Johnson,  Francis,  Congregationalist, 
463,  466. 

Johnson,  Samuel,  Episcopalian,  568. 

Jonas,  Justus,  reformer,  349,  371. 

Joseph,  King  of  Portugal,  557. 

Joseph  II,  Emperor,  492. 

Joseph  II,  patriarch  of  Constanti 
nople,  311. 

Jovian,  Emperor,  125. 

Jovinianus,  175. 

Juan  de  la  Cruz,  mystic,  429. 

Juana,  Queen  of  Spain,  326. 

Jud,  Leo,  reformer,  362. 

Julian,  bishop  of  Eclanum,  187. 

Julian,  of  Halicarnassus,  156. 

Julian,  the  "Apostate,"  Emperor,  123, 
124. 

Julius,  Popes,  I,  120,  121;  II,  318,  319, 
402;  III,  381. 

Junius,  Franz,  theologian,  454. 

Justin,  Emperors,  I,  154;  II,  157,  190. 

Justin  Martyr,  Apologist  and  theo 
logian,  50-52;  see  also  43,  66,  68,  71, 
77,  78,  92,  94,  95,  98. 

Justina,  Empress,  140. 

Justinian,  Emperors,  I,  theological 
politician,  154-157;  see  also  83,  133, 
134,  162,  164,  166,  190;  II,  161 


Kallistos,  bishop  of  Rome,  Christology, 
74,  75;  forgiveness,  101;  the  church, 
103. 

Kanis,  Peter,  Jesuit,  427. 

Kant,  Immanuel,  philosopher,  530-535, 
542,  545. 

Karl  Ludwig,  Elector  Palatine,  450. 

Karlstadt,  Andreas  Bodenstein  of,  340, 
343,  349,  350,  353,  383. 

Kattenbusch,  Ferdinand,  543. 

Keble,  John,  Anglo-Catholic,  547,  548. 

Kempis,  John  a,  282. 

Kempis,  Thomas  a,  the  Imitation,  282. 

Kentigern,  missionary,  196. 

Kepler,  Johann,  astronomer,  483. 

Kerbogha,  Sultan  of  Mosul,  241. 

Kilian,  missionary,  197. 

Kingsley,  Charles,  English  broad- 
church,  546. 

Kirkham,  Robert,  at  Oxford,  510. 

Knights  of  St.  John,  see  Hospitallers. 

Knox,  John,  life  and  work,  416-422;  see 
also  410,  415. 

Kramer,  Heinrich,  inquisitor,  333. 

Kublai  Khan,  284. 

Lainez,  Diego,  Jesuit,  425,  427. 

Laity,  the,  89. 

Lambert,  Emperor,  215. 

Lambert,  Francis,  reformer,  357. 

Lanfranc,  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
262,  263,  273. 

Langton,  Stephen,  archbishop  of  Can 
terbury,  287. 

Lardner,  Nathaniel,  Arian,  495. 

Latimer,  Hugh,  bishop,  406,  412. 

Laud,  William,  archbishop  of  Canter 
bury,  468-471. 

Laurentius,  martyr,  87. 

Law,  the  canon,  292. 

Law,  William,  Nonjuror,  488,  489,  508, 
510. 

League,  of  Schmalkalden,  373,  376,  378. 
379. 

League,  the  Catholic,  in  France,  436, 
440. 

Lectionaries,  167. 

Le  Fevre,  Jacques,  humanist,  315,  331, 
386,  390. 

Lefevre,  Pierre,  Jesuit,  425. 

Legate,  Bartholomew,  burned,  494. 

Leibnitz,  Gottfried  Wilhelm,  philos 
opher,  485,  524,  525,  533. 

Leicester,  the  earl  of,  437. 

Lent,  93,  169,  213,  361. 

Leo,  Brother,  Franciscan,  261. 

Leo,  Emperors,  III,  162,  202;  V,  206. 

Leo,  metropolitan  of  Bulgaria,  224. 

Leo,  Popes,  I,  132,  134,  135,  150-154, 
159,  161,  165,  168.  190;  III,  206;  IV, 
212;  VIII,  217;  IX,  222-224,  226; 
X,  261,  318,  319,  340,  342,  343,  346, 
351,  384,  402,  422;  XIII,  414,  562, 
563. 


616 


INDEX 


Leontius,    of   Byzantium,    theologian, 

155,  156,  163. 
Lessing,  Gotthold  Ephraim,  critic,  527, 

529. 

Letters  of  Obscure  Men,  the,  336. 
Liberius,  Pope,  122. 
Liberties,  the  Gallican,  556,  559. 
Licinius,  Emperor,  109-111,  115. 
Lindsey,  Theophilus,  Unitarian,  495. 
Locke,  John,  philosopher,  485-487,  490, 

530. 

Logos,  the,  in  Heraclitus,  3;  Aristotle, 
4;  Stoicism,  6,  7;  paralleled  in  He 
brew  "Wisdom,"  16;  Philo,  17; 
Paul,  36;  the  Johannine  literature, 
38;  Justin  Martyr,  52;  Irenaeus,  66; 
TertuUian,  69;  discussed,  71,  72; 
Paul  of  Samosata,  73;  triumphs  in 
West,  75,  76,  83;  Clement  of  Alex 
andria,  78;  Origen,  81,  82;  Neo- 
Platonic,  106;  Arius,  115,  144;  Apol- 
linaris,  144;  Diodorus,  145;  Cyril, 
146;  Leontius,  155. 

Loisy,  Alfred,  modernist,  564. 

Lombards,  the,  133,  134,  159,  190-192, 
203-205,  215. 

Loofs,  Friedrich,  cited,  69,  82,  541,  543. 

Lord's  Supper,  the,  general  view,  97-99; 
primitive,  23;  Pauline,  40,  97; 
Johannine,  40,  98;  Ignatius,  41,  98; 
Justin  Martyr,  43,  92,  98;  Irenaeus, 
66;  the  real  presence,  98;  a  sacrifice, 
99;  infant  communion,  99,  274;  com 
memorative,  99;  developments,  167, 
168;  Augustine,  183;  Gregory,  193; 
Kadbertus  and  Ratramnus,  211; 
Catharite,  250;  Berengar,  262,  263; 
transubstantiation,  263,  274,  288; 
Aquinas,  273,  274;  disuse  of  cup  by 
laity,  274;  Wyclif,  300;  cup  to  laity, 
305;  Luther,  345,  352,  364,  370,  411; 
Zwingli,  364,  370;  Calvin,  394;  Eng 
lish  Prayer  Books,  409,  410;  Me- 
lanchthon,  442,  443;  Socinians,  453. 

Lothair,  Emperor,  209. 

Lothair  II,  King,  213. 

Lotze,  R.  H.,  philosopher,  542. 

Louis,  Kings  of  France,  VII,  242;  IX, 
244,  288;  XI,  320,  326;  XII,  318,  320; 
XIII,  441,  448;  XIV,  441,  556;  XV, 
558;  XVI,  558. 

Louis,  of  Bavaria,  imperial  claimant, 
278,  280,  293-295. 

Louis,  the  "Child,"  216. 

Louis,  the  "German,"  Emperor,  210. 

Louis,  the  "Pious,"  Emperor,  209,  219. 

Loyola,  Ignatius,  see  Ignatius. 

Lucian,  of  Antioch  theologian,  106, 
114,  115,  144. 

Lucius  III,  Pope,  251. 

Luder,  Peter,  humanist,  327. 

Luke,  Gospel  of,  35,  57,  60,  62,  536, 
540. 

Lull,  bishop  of  Mainz,  202. 


Lull,  Raimon,  missionary,  284. 

Luther,  Martin,  early  life,  336,  337;  a 
monk,  337;  professor,  338;  religious 
experience,  338,  339,  346;  theses,  340, 
341;  the  Leipzig  debate,  343,  344; 
the  great  treatises,  344-346;  at 
Worms,  347,  348;  the  Wartburg,  348, 
349;  return  to  Wittenberg,  350;  con 
servatism,  350-352;  public  worship, 
352;  breach  with  Erasmus,  352,  353; 
the  Peasants'  War,  353,  354;  mar 
riage,  355,  356;  churches  organized, 
351,  352,  357,  358;  the  Short  Cate 
chism,  358;  "Protestants,"  359;  dis 
pute  with  Zwingli,  363,  364,  370;  the 
Marburg  colloquy,  370;  the  Augs 
burg  Confession,  371-373;  Philip's 
bigamy,  377,  378;  death,  379;  see  also 
186,  246,  279-281,  306,  333,  334,  360, 
361,  382,  391,  392,  394,  405,  415,  422, 
442,  453,  481,  496,  513,  543. 

Lutherans,  the,  churches  organized,  357, 
358;  Augsburg  Confession,  371-373; 
full  rights,  382;  controversies,  441- 
445;  in  America,  568,  569,  575-578, 
580. 

Macaulay,  Zachary,  Evangelical,  520. 
Maccabees,  Jewish  rulers,  13,  14,  20. 
Macedonians,  the,  on  Holy  Spirit,  125. 
Magnentius,  imperial  pretender,  121. 
Magni,    Peter,    bishop,    Swedish    suc 
cession,  385. 

Major,  Georg,  theologian,  442. 
Majorinus,  bishop  of  Carthage,  113. 
Makemie,  Francis,  Presbyterian,  569. 
Mani,  religious  founder,  107. 
Manichseism,  107,  176-178,  235,  249. 
Manning,  H.  E.,  cardinal,  549. 
Manwaring,  Roger,  Royalist,  469. 
Manz,  Felix,  Anabaptist,  366,  367,  369. 
Marburg  colloquy,  see  Colloquy. 
Marcellus,  bishop  of  Ancyra,  118,  120, 

121,  126. 

Marcian,  Emperor,  151. 
Marcion,  Gnostic  reformer,  56,  57. 
Marcionites,  235. 
Marcourt,  Antoine,  radical  Protestant, 

391,  392. 
Marcus  Aurelius,  Emperor,  6,  49,  83, 

85,  129. 

Marguerite  d'Angoule"me,  391. 
Maris,  the  Persian,  156. 
Mark,  archbishop  of  Ephesus,  312. 
Mark,  Gospel  of,  34,  37,  60,  62,  536, 

540. 

Marprelate  Tracts,  the,  462. 
Marquette,    Jacques,    Jesuit   explorer, 

565. 
Marsilius,  of  Padua,  the  Defensor  Pads, 

293-295,  306,  307. 
Martin,  bishop  of  Tours,  138. 
Martin,  Popes,  I,  160,  161;  V,  310,  317. 
Martyrs,  honored,  93,  170. 


INDEX 


617 


Mary,  of  Burgundy,  326. 
Mary  "Queen  of  Scots,"  409,  413,  417; 
reign,  417-422;  death,  439;  see  also 

431,  438,  464.    ' 

Mary,  the  Virgin;  the  "Second  Eve," 
66;  "Mother  of  God,"  146-148,  152; 
reverence  for,  170,  171,  175;  im 
maculate  conception,  278,  560. 

Mary  I,  Queen  of  England,  411-413, 
417,  457,  458. 

Maryland,  colonial  religious  conditions, 
566. 

Mather,  Richard,  Congregationalist, 
469. 

Mathys,  Jan,  Anabaptist,  374. 

Matilda,  countess  of  Tuscany,  226/230. 

Matthew,  Gospel  of,  35,  38,  60,  62,  536, 
540. 

Matthias,  Emperor,  446. 

Matthias,  of  Janov,  preacher,  302. 

Maurice,  J.  F.  D.,  545,  546. 

Maurice,  Stadholder,  455,  456. 

Maxentius,  rival  of  Constantino,  109, 
110. 

Maxfleld,  Thomas,  Methodist,  515. 

Maximilian,  duke  of  Bavaria,  445-450. 

Maximilian  I,  Emperor,  325,  326,  328, 
335,  343,  346. 

Maximilla,  Montanist,  58,  59. 

Maximus  Daia,  Emperor,  109-111. 

Mayhew,  Jonathan,  Liberal,  573. 

Medici,  Cosimo  de',  315. 

Melanchthon,  Philip,  342,  353,  357, 
376;  Loci  Communes,  349;  Augsburg 
Confession,  371-373;  Apology,  373; 
Philip's  bigamy,  377;  the  Leipzig 
Interim,  380,  442;  on  Servetus,  399; 
on  faith,  399 ;  differences  from  Luther, 
442;  contests,  442,  443;  death,  443; 
see  also  329,  454. 

Melito,  of  Sardis,  50. 

Melville,    Andrew,    Scottish   reformer, 

432,  467. 

Memnon,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  148. 

Mendoza,  archbishop  of  Toledo,  323. 

Menno  Simons,  Anabaptist,  375. 

Mennonites,  the,  375,  465,  568,  569. 

Merswin,  Rulman,  mystic,  281. 

Messianic  Hope,  the,  14,  15,  19-23,  39. 

Methodism,  development,  510-517;  ef 
fects  of,  518-523,  544;  in  America, 
517,  518,  572;  organization  there, 
575,  580,  584;  divisions,  584,  585; 
see  also  508,  524,  570,  578,  586,  589. 

Methodius,  bishop  of  Olympus,  83. 

Methodius,  missionary,  214. 

Michael  Cerularius,  patriarch  of  Con 
stantinople,  224. 

Michael,  Emperors,  III,  213,  214; 
VII,  239. 

Michaelmas,  171. 

Michelangelo,  artist,  316. 

Milicz,  of  Kremsier,  preacher,  302. 

Mill,  John,  Biblical  scholar,  528. 


Miller,  William,  Adventist,  582. 

Mills,  Samuel  J.,  Jr.,  missions,  523. 

Milman,  H.  H.,  dean,  545. 

Milner,  Isaac,  Evangelical,  520. 

Milner,  Joseph,  Evangelical,  519. 

Miltitz,  Karl  von,  343. 

Milton,  John,  494. 

Miracles,  main  Christian  evidences, 
452,  493,  494;  criticism  of,  488,  491, 
525,  527,  540. 

Missions,  Arian,  129-134;  British  Is 
lands,  195-200;  to  Germany,  201, 
202,  216;  under  Charlemagne,  205, 
206;  Scandinavia,  213,  214,  236,  237; 
Slavs  and  Russia,  214,  237;  Hun 
gary,  237;  mediaeval  to  China,  284; 
to  Mohammedans,  284;  Francis,  258, 
284;  Lull,  284;  Roman  Catholic,  429, 
430;  America,  565;  Quaker.  479; 
Halle-Danish,  500,  522;  Moravian, 
504,  505,  522;  modern  Protestant 
awakening,  522,  523;  American,  579, 
586,  587. 

Mithraism,  10,  106,  107,  169. 

Modernists,  the,  564. 

Mohammed,  159,  160. 

Molther,  P.  H.,  Moravian,  514. 

Monarchians,  the,  Dynamic,  72,  73; 
Modalistic,  72-75,  180. 

Monasticism,  sources  and  development, 
104,  136-140;  Benedict  of  Nursia, 
138,  139;  Benedict  of  Anlane,  218, 
219;  Cluny,  219,  220;  Camaldoli, 
221;  Cistercians,  245,  246;  Do 
minicans,  254-256;  Franciscans, 
258-261. 

Monnica,  175,  176,  178. 

Monophysites,  the,  135,  153-160,  312. 

Monothelite  controversy,  the,  160,  161. 

Montanism,  57-60,  62-64,  67.  71.  72, 
88. 

Morality,  higher  and  lower,  103,  104. 

Moravians,  the,  501-507,  511-514,  532, 
569,  579;  also  306. 

More,  Hannah,  Evangelical,  520. 

More,  Sir  Thomas,  401,  404. 

Moritz,  duke  and  Elector  of  Saxony, 
379-381,  427,  442. 

Mormons,  the,  582,  583. 

Mosheim,  J.  L.  von,  historian,  526. 

Milhlenberg,  H.  M.,  American  Luth 
eran,  575,  576. 

Miiller,  George,  of  Bristol,  551. 

Mtinzer,  Thomas,  radical,  353. 

Murray,  John,  Universalist,  576. 

Murton,  John,  Baptist,  465. 

Mystery  religions,  the,  9-11,  40,  44,  54, 
92,  94. 

Mystics,  the,  279-283,  429. 

Napoleon,  Emperors,  I,  558,  559;  III, 

562. 

Narses,  general,  133. 
Neander,  J.  A.  W.,  historian,  538. 


618 


INDEX 


Neo-Platonisni,  system  and  influence, 
106,  107;  Augustine,  177-180,  185; 
see  also  5,  76,  80,  82,  163,  266,  279, 
280,  282,  327,  545. 

Nero,  Emperor,  33. 

Nestorians,  the,  149,  158,  160,  284,  312. 

Nestorius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
life  and  teaching,  145-149,  171,  187. 

Netherlands,  the,  Protestantism  in, 
433-438. 

New  England,  colonial  religious  con 
ditions  in,  567,  568. 

New  Jersey,  colonial  religious  condi 
tions  in,  569. 

New  York,  colonial  religious  conditions 
in,  568,  569. 

Newman,  John  Henry,  cardinal,  547- 
549. 

Newton,  John,  Evangelical,  519. 

Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  gravitation,  483, 
552. 

Niceea,  Council  of,  see  Council. 

Nice,  Agreement  of,  122. 

Nicholas,  of  Hereford,  translator,  300. 

Nicholas,  Popes,  I,  212-215,  235;  II, 
226,  227;  V,  312,  316. 

Nicolaitanism,  220,  232,  237,  245,  246. 

Niebuhr,  B.  G.,  historian,  539. 

Nitschmann,  David,  Moravian,  504, 
511. 

Noailles,  L.  A.  de,  cardinal,  557. 

Nobili,  Roberto  de,  missionary,  430. 

Noetus,  Christology,  73. 

Nogaret,  William,  291. 

Nominalism,  262-264,  269,  279. 

Nonjurors,  the,  476,  488. 

Northumberland,  the  duke  of,  410,  411. 

Norway,  the  Reformation  in,  384. 

Novatian,  theologian  and  Counter- 
Pope,  on  the  Trinity,  75,  76,  114; 
schism,  102,  113,  117. 

Occam,   William  of,   schoolman,   261, 

278,  279,  295,  337,  338,  364. 
Ochino,  Bernardino,  radical,  424. 
Octavian,  see  Pope  John  XII. 
Odilo,  abbot  of  Cluny,  219,  228. 
Odo,  abbot  of  Cluny.  219. 
Odovaker,  King  of  Italy,  132,  133. 
CEcolampadius,  Johann,  reformer,  363, 

364,  370. 
Oglethorpe,  James  Edward,  colonizer, 

511. 
Olaf,    Kings   of  Norway,    I,   236;   II, 

"Saint,"  236,  237. 
Olaf   Skottkonung,    King   of   Sweden, 

237. 

Old  Catholics,  the,  561. 
Oldcastle,  Sir  John,  Wycliflte,  301. 
Oldenbarneveldt,   Johan   van,    Armin- 

ian,  454,  455. 
Olevianus,    Kaspar,    theologian,    443, 

472. 
Olga,  Queen  of  Russia,  237. 


Omar,  Caliph,  160. 

Ordination,  89,  90. 

Origen,  life  and  theology,  78-83;  chief 
works,  80;  threefold  sense  of  Scrip 
ture,  80,  81;  fundamentals,  81;  a 
Platonist,  81 ;  God  and  Christ,  81,  82; 
salvation,  82;  final  restoration,  83; 
significance,  83 ;  in  Arian  controversy, 
114-117,  122,  123,  125,  127;  con 
demned,  83,  142,  156,  157;  see  also 
85,  92,  95,  103,  105,  106,  171,  174, 
175,  180,  330. 

Osiander,  Andreas,  reformer,  442. 

Ostrogoths,  the,  130,  133-135. 

Oswald,  King,  199. 

Oswy,  King,  199. 

Othman,  Caliph,  160. 

Otto,  Emperors,  I,  215-217;  II,  217; 
III,  217,  218;  IV,  287,  290. 

Oxenstjerna,  statesman,  449. 

Pachomius,  monastic  founder,  137,  138. 

Pack,  Otto  von,  358. 

Paine,  Thomas,  radical,  492. 

Paley,  William,  Apologist,  493,  494. 

Pantsenus,  of  Alexandria,  77. 

Papacy,  early  steps  toward,  63-65,  70, 
71,  76;  Constantinople,  112,  113; 
Sardica,  121;  Theodosius  and  Gra- 
tian,  127;  growth  in  fifth  century, 
134-136;  claims  of  Gelasius,  135; 
theological  triumphs,  161;  influence 
of  Augustine's  theories,  184;  Gregory 
the  Great,  190,  191;  the  Franks,  191, 
195,  202-208;  the  Decretals,  212,  213; 
Nicholas  I,  212,  213;  rescued  by  Otto 
I  and  Henry  III,  217,  221,  222; 
Cluny  reform,  222-225:  break  with 
empire,  225-228;  electoral  reform, 
226,  227;  Hildebrand's  struggle,  228- 
232;  compromise,  233,  234;  leader 
ship  in  Crusades,  233,  239-241;  at 
height,  285-288;  Innocent  III,  286- 
288;  dependence  on  France,  288,  289; 
Philip  IV,  290-292;  unam  sanctam, 
291;  Avignon,  291,  292;  critics,  293- 
295;  defenders,  295;  English  op 
position,  295;  taxation,  296;  return 
to  Rome,  296,  297;  schism,  297,  298; 
councils,  306-313;  Italian  princes, 
317-320;  since  the  Reformation,  555- 
564;  infallibility,  561;  temporal 
sovereignty,  562. 

Parish,  origin  of  the,  166,  208. 

Parker,  Matthew,  archbishop  of  Can 
terbury,  414,  458. 

Parma,  Margaret  of,  Regent,  433. 

Parsons,  Robert,  Jesuit,  438,  440. 

Pascal,  Blaise,  critic  of  Jesuits,  556. 

Paschal  II,  Pope,  233. 

Patrick,  missionary,  195,  196. 

Patripassians,  the,  73. 

Paul,  Apostle,  life  and  work,  26-30; 
freedom,  28-30;  theology,  30-32,  66; 


INDEX 


619 


Christology,  36,  37;  writings  as 
"Scripture,"  62;  death,  30,  63;  see 
also  6,  14,  40,  44-47,  55-57,  94,  186, 
339. 

Paul,  of  Samosata,  Christology,  72,  73, 
83,  105,  106,  116,  144,  145,  235. 

Paul,  Popes,  II,  317;  III,  375,  378,  380, 
381,  423-427;  IV,  see  Caraffa. 

Paul,  the  Deacon,  207. 

Paulicians,  the,  235,  236,  249. 

Paulinus,  bishop  of  York,  199. 

Paulinus,  of  Milan,  186. 

Paulus,  H.  E.  B.,  rationalist,  537,  540. 

Peace,  of  Augsburg,  382,  430,  443,  445, 
446. 

Peace,  of  Cambrai,  358. 

Peace,  of  Prague,  449. 

Peace,  of  Westphalia,  450,  451. 

Peirce,  James,  Arian,  494. 

Pelagius,  theologian,  and  Pelagianism, 
life  and  teaching,  185-188;  the 
"Semi-Pelagians,"  188-190;  see  also 
148,  175,  189,  455. 

Pelagius  II,  Pope,  190. 

Penn,  William,  Quaker,  480. 

Pennsylvania,  colonial  religious  condi 
tions,  569. 

Pentecost,  169. 

Persecutions,  Nero,  33,  63;  Domitian, 
34;  for  the  "name,"  48;  Trajan  and 
Pliny,  49;  Hadrian  to  Commodus,  49, 
85;  charges,  49,  50,  84;  Septimius 
Severus,  67,  79,  85;  to  Decius,  84,  85; 
systematic  under  Decius  and  Vale 
rian,  85-87,  101;  the  lapsed,  86,  101, 
102,  109;  Diocletian,  109-111. 

Peter,  Apostle,  Christ's  resurrection. 
21;  Pentecost,  22;  leadership,  23- 
28;  Christology,  35;  death,  33,  63. 

Peter,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  127. 

Peter,  Damiani,  cardinal,  221,  224,  226, 
276. 

Peter  Lombard,  theologian,  266,  267, 
273,  303,  338. 

Peter,  of  Bruys,  radical,  248. 

Peter,  of  Castelnau,  legate,  253. 

Peter,  the  "Fuller,"  bishop  of  Antioch, 
153. 

Peter,  the  Hermit,  Crusader,  239, 
240. 

Petersson,  Lars,  reformer,  385. 

Petersson,  Olaf,  reformer,  385. 

Petrarch,  humanist,  314. 

Pfefferkorn,  Johann,  agitator,  335. 

Pfleiderer,  Otto,  543. 

Pharisees,  the,  13,  14,  16,  19,  20,  26. 

Philip,  the  Arabian,  Emperor,  85,  86. 

Philip,  Kings  of  France,  II  (August), 
243,  287;  IV,  242,  290-292;  V,  293. 

Philip,  landgrave  of  Hesse,  355-359; 
Marburg  colloquy,  370;  bigamy,  376- 
378;  defeat  and  imprisonment,  379. 

Philip,  of  Austria,  326. 

Philip,  of  Swabia,  287. 


Philip  II,  of  Spain,  411-413,  430-441; 

see  also  381,  420. 
Philo,  of  Alexandria,  17,  18,  26,  76,  77, 

80. 
Photius,   patriarch  of  Constantinople, 

213,  224,  235,  237. 
Pico,  della  Mirandola,  philosopher,  315, 

328. 

Pictures,  reverence  for,  162,  163,  172. 
Pietism,  496-501 ;  see  also  502,  504,  524- 

529,  570,  575,  578,  584. 
Pilate,  Pontius,  15,  19. 
Pilatus,    Leontius,    teacher   of  Greek, 

314. 

Pippin,  mayor  of  palace,  200,  201. 
Pippin,  the  Short,  King  of  the  Franks, 

200-205,  208,  215. 
Pius,  Popes,  II,  305,  316,  317;  V,  428, 

434;  VI,  558;  VII,  558-560;  IX,  278, 

549,  560-562;  X,  292,  563,  564,  586. 
Plato,  3-5;  influence,  17,  51,  77,  80,  81, 

145,  269,  315,  532. 
Plethon,  Gemistos,  Platonist,  315. 
Pliny,  governor,  42,  49. 
Plotinus,  Neo-Platonist,  106. 
Plutarch,  religious  reformer,  9. 
PlUtschau,  Heinrich,  missionary,  500. 
Plymouth  Brethren,  the,  551. 
Pole,  Reginald,  archbishop  of  Canter 
bury,  375,  411,  423. 
Polo,    Maffeo,    Marco,    and    Nicolo, 

travellers,  284. 
Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  40,  42,  49, 

59,  62,  64,  65. 

Polycrates,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  65. 
Pombal,  marquis  of,  492,  557. 
Pontianus,  bishop  of  Rome,  85. 
Pontitianus,  177. 

Porphyry,  Neo-Platonist,  106,  262. 
Pothinus,  bishop  of  Lyons,  65. 
Poverty,    "Apostolic,"   246,    247,   251, 

255,  258-261,  295,  299,  303. 
Prxmunire,  statute  of,  295,  403. 
Pragmatic  sanction,  the,  313,  319,  321. 
Praxeas,  Christology,  73. 
Prayer  Books,  English,  409,  410,  414, 

417. 

Preaching,  167,  168. 
Presbyterians,   English,  470-474,   477, 

494,  495,  519,  550;  American,  566, 

569-571,    573,    579,    580;    divisions. 

584-586;  also  589. 
Presbyters,  early,  23,  45-48;  duties,  90; 

compensation,  166. 
Prierio,  against  Luther,  342. 
Priestley,  Joseph,  Unitarian,  495. 
Printing,  invention  of,  315. 
Prisca.  Montanist,  58. 
Proclus,  Neo-Platonist,  279. 
Proles,    Andreas,    monastic    reformer, 

337. 
Propaganda,  Congregation  of  the,  430, 

586. 
Protestant,  the  name,  359. 


620 


INDEX 


Protestant   Episcopal,    see   Church   of 

England  in  America. 
Provisors,  statute  of,  295. 
Provoost,  Samuel,  bishop,  574. 
Pseudo-Dionysius  (writings  attributed 

to  Dionysius  the  Areopagite),   171, 

210,  266,  269,  270,  279. 
Pseudo-Isidorian    Decretals,    see    De 
cretals. 

Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  17. 

Pufendorf,  Samuel,  jurist,  486. 

Pulcheria,  Empress,  147,  150,  151. 

Purgatory,  193,  277. 

Puritans,  the,  aims,  415,  458;  two 
stages,  458,  460;  the  struggle,  460- 
473. 

Pusey,  Edward  Bouverie,  Anglo- 
Catholic,  548,  549. 

Pyrrho,  Sceptic,  6. 

Pythagoreans,  the,  3,  51. 

Quadratus,  Apologist,  50. 

Quakers,  the,  477-480;  see  also  368,  519, 

520;  in  American  colonies,  566,  568- 

570. 

Quesnel,  Pasquier,  Jansenist,  556,  557. 
Quinones,  Fernandez  de,  liturgist,  409. 

Radbertus,  Paschasius,  Lord's  Supper, 

211,  262,  273. 

Radewyn,  Florentius,  mystic,  281. 
Raikes,   Robert,   Sunday-schools,   521, 

522. 

Raimond,  of  Toulouse,  Crusader,  240. 
Raphael,  painter,  316. 
Ratramnus,  Lord's  Supper,  211,  262. 
Raymond,  du  Puy,  Hospitaller,  242. 
Readers,  90,  91. 
Realism,  262,  264,  269. 
Recared,  Visigothic  King,  134,  191. 
Reformed,   in   America   (Dutch),   568, 

569,  575,  579,  589;   (German),  569, 

575,  589. 
Reimarus,    Hermann    Samuel,    radical 

Critic,  526-529,  540. 
Reinhard,  Martin,  reformer,  383. 
Relics,  reverence  for,  93,  172. 
Religions,  Mystery,  see  Mystery. 
Relly,  James,  Universalist,  576. 
Remonstrants,  the,  455,  456. 
Renaissance,    the,    313-317,    326-332; 

ideal  of  reform,  331. 
Renan,  Ernst,  541. 
Renee,  duchess  of  Ferrara,  395,  402, 

423. 
Reuchlin,  Johann,  humanist,  315,  328, 

329,  335,  336,  342. 
Reunion  conferences,  the,  376,  424. 
Revolution,  the  French,  558. 
Reynolds,  Edward,  bishop,  474. 
Rhode  Island,  colonial  religious  condi 
tions,  568. 

Ricci,  Matteo,  missionary,  430. 
Riccio,  David,  420,  421. 


Richard,    Kings   of  England,   I,   243; 

II,  301,  302. 
Richard,    of  Middletown,    schoolman, 

277. 

Richelieu,  statesman,  441,  448. 
Ridley,  Nicholas,  406,  412. 
Rienzi,  Cola  di,  296. 
Ritschl,  Albrecht,  theologian,  541-544. 
Robert,  of  Normandy,  Crusader,  240. 
Robert  de  Sorbon,  founder,  268. 
Robertson,  F.  W.,  broad-church,  546. 
Robinson,     John,      Congregationalist, 

465,  466. 

Rodriguez,  Simon,  Jesuit,  425. 
Rogers,  John,  burned,  412. 
Roman    Catholics,    in    America,    565— 

568,  573,  574,  579,  585,  586. 
Romuald,  monastic  reformer,  220,  221. 
Romulus  Augustulus,  132. 
Roscelin,  schoolman,  263,  264,  279. 
Rose,    Hugh    James,    Anglo-Catholic, 

547. 

Rothad,  bishop  of  Soissons,  213. 
Rothe,  Johann   Andreas,  Pietist,  502, 

503. 

Rothmann,  Bernt,  Anabaptist,  375. 
Rotislav,  duke  of  Moravia,  214. 
Roubli,  Wilhelm,  Anabaptist,  366,  367. 
Rousseau,  Jean  Jacques,  529. 
Roussel,  Gerard,  Calvin's  friend,  390, 

391. 

Rubeanus,  Crotus,  humanist,  336. 
Rudolf,  Emperors,  I,  290;  II,  446. 
Rudolf,  of  Swabia,  231. 
Ruflnus,  scholar,  173. 
Ruquesens,  Luis  de,  governor,  436. 
Rusticus,  Roman  magistrate,  50. 
Ruysbroeck,  John  of,  mystic,  281. 

Sabellius,  and  Sabellianism,  73-75.  83, 
105,  114,  265;  Nicene  result  seems, 
117,  122,  124. 

Saccas,  Ammonius,  Neo-Platonist,  80, 
106. 

Sacraments,  the,  Augustine,  183;  Aqui 
nas,  273;  Scotus,  278;  Luther,  345. 

Sadducees,  the,  13. 

Sadoleto,  Jacopo,  cardinal,  375,  396, 
423. 

Saints,  aid  of,  170,  193,  277. 

Saisset,  Bernard,  legate,  290. 

Saladin,  242. 

Sale,  Margarete  von  der,  377. 

Sales,  Francois  de,  Roman  missionary, 
429. 

Salmeron,  Alfonso,  Jesuit,  425,  427. 

Salvation,  primitive,  23,  24;  Pauline, 
31,  66;  Johannine,  40;  Ignatius,  41, 
66;  Greek  and  Latin,  41,  167,  168, 
173;  Justin  Martyr,  51,  52;  Gnostic, 
54-56;  Marcion,  56;  Irenseus,  66; 
Tertullian,  68,  69;  Origen,  82;  Neo- 
Platonic,  107;  Athanasius,  118;  Nes- 
torius,  145,  146;  Cyril,  146,  153; 


INDEX 


621 


Augustine,  182;  Cathari,  250;  Aqui 
nas,  272,  277,  291;  Scotus,  277,  278; 
Boniface  VIII,  291;  Luther,  338- 
340,  368;  Anabaptist,  368;  Calvin, 
393;  Socinians,  453;  Pietist,  497; 
Methodist,  513;  Ritschlian,  543 ;  An 
glo-Catholic,  548;  American,  578, 
584.  585. 

Salvation  Army,  the,  551. 

Sampson,  Thomas,  Puritan,  458. 

Sancroft,  William,  archbishop  of  Can 
terbury,  476. 

Saravia,  Adrian,  Anglican,  462. 

Satornilus,  Gnostic,  56. 

Sattler,  Michael,  Anabaptist,  368,  369. 

Savonarola,  Girolamo,  reformer,  256, 
319,  320. 

Schell,  Hermann,  modernist,  564. 

Schelling,  F.  W.  J.  von,  philosopher, 
534,  545. 

Schiller,  J.  C.  F.  von,  poet,  527,  530. 

Schleiermacher,  F.  D.  E.,  life  and  influ 
ence,  532-535,  537,  538,  542,  545. 

Schmalkaldic  League,  see  League. 

Scholasticism,  245,  261-267,  269-279. 

Schwartz,  Christian  Friedrich,  mission 
ary,  500. 

Sciffl,  Clara,  Franciscan,  259. 

Scory,  John,  bishop,  414. 

Scotland,  Reformation  in,  415-422; 
Episcopacy  and  Presbyterianism  un 
der  the  Stewarts,  467,  470,  477,  478; 
the  covenants,  470,  471;  Presby 
terianism  established,  478;  tolera 
tion,  478,  552;  patronage,  552,  554; 
divisions,  553,  554;  Moderatism,  553, 
554;  Chalmers,  554;  reunions,  554, 
555. 

Scott,  Sir  Walter,  544. 

Scott,  Thomas,  Evangelical,  519,  523. 

Scotus,  John  Duns,  schoolman,  277, 
278,  453. 

Scripture.  New  Testament  as,  34,  35, 
61,  62;  threefold  sense,  80,  81;  sole 
authority,  279,  344,  361,  362,  392; 
printed,  324,  332. 

Seabury,  Samuel,  bishop,  574. 

Seeberg,  Reinhold,  126,  127,  543. 

Selnecker,  Nikolaus,  theologian,  443, 
444. 

Semler,  Johann  Salomo,  Biblical  schol 
ar,  529,  532,  536. 

Seneca,  Stoic,  6,  8.  390,  391. 

Septuagint,  the,  17. 

Serapis,  worship  of,  10. 

Sergius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
160,  161. 

Sergius,  Pope,  201. 

Servetus,  Miguel,  Anti-Trinitarian, 
399,  451,  452. 

Severus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  156. 

Seymour,  Jane,  Queen,  405,  408. 

Shaftesbury,  the  earl  of,  moralist,  486, 
487. 


Sharp,  James,  archbishop  of  St.  An 
drews,  477. 

Siegfried,  archbishop  of  Mainz,  228. 

Sigismund,  Emperor,  304,  305,  308,  309. 

Silvester,  Popes,  II,  218;  III,  221. 

Simeon,  Charles,  Evangelical,  520. 

Simeon,  head  of  Jerusalem  church,  25. 

Simeon  Stylites,  hermit,  137. 

Simon  Magus,  56. 

Simony,  220,  224,  238,  245. 

Simplicius,  Pope,  165. 

Sin,  and  forgiveness,  in  general,  100- 
102,  173;  unto  death.  100;  absolvers, 
101;  Kallistos's  decree,  101;  No- 
vatian,  102;  all  sins  forgivable,  102; 
Tertullian,  68;  Cyprian,  95;  Am 
brose,  141;  Augustine.  181;  Pelagian, 
185,  186;  Aquinas,  272;  Peter  Lom 
bard,  275;  Scotus,  278;  Cathari te, 
249,  250;  Luther,  339,  345;  Calvin, 
393;  Jesuit,  426;  Westminster  Con 
fession,  472;  Edwards,  572. 

Sixtus.  Popes,  II,  87;  IV,  317,  322,  324; 

V,  440. 

Smith,  Joseph,  Mormon,  582,  583. 

Smyth,  John,  Baptist,  465. 

Societies,  Bible,  521,  560. 

Societies,  the  English,  508,  513,  515. 

Societies,  tract,  521. 

Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowl 
edge,  508,  521. 

Society  for  the  Propagation,  508,  522, 
566.  568. 

Socinianism,  330,  451-453,  494. 

Socrates,  3,  52. 

Somerset,  the  protector.  408-410. 

Sophronius,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  160. 

Sorbonne,  the,  268. 

Soto,  Domingo  de,  theologian,  324. 

Sozzini  (Sozini),  the,  Fausto.  452; 
Lelio,  452. 

Spangenberg,  A.  G.,  Moravian,  504- 
506,  511. 

Sparks,  Jared,  Unitarian,  577. 

Spener,  Philipp  Jakob,  Pietist,  496- 
499;  see  also  500-503.  508. 

Spinoza,  Baruch,  philosopher,  484,  485, 
532,  533. 

Spirit,  the  Holy,  Paul's  doctrine,  57; 
distinguished,  58;  Tertullian,  69; 
Sabellius,  74;  Origen,  82,  124; 
Athanasius,  124;  Macedonians,  125; 
the  Nicene  creed,  128;  Augustine, 
178-182;  Calvin,  393;  Protestant 
ism,  481. 

Spirituals,  the.  361. 

Sprenger,  Jakob,  inquisitor,  333. 

Stanley,  A.  P.,  broad-church,  546. 

Staupitz,  Johann,  Luther's  monastic 
superior,  337,  338. 

Stephanas,  44,  48. 

Stephen,  martyr,  24. 

Stephen,  Popes,  I,  97;  II,  204;  V,  215; 

VI,  215;  IX,  225. 


622 


INDEX 


Stephen  I,  "  Saint,"  King  of  Hungary, 
237. 

Stewart,  James,  earl  of  Moray,  420- 
422. 

Stilicho,  general,  131. 

Stoicism,  teaching,  6,  7;  at  Tarsus,  6, 
26;  Tertullian,  67-69;  Clement  and 
Origen,  77-80;  Pelagius,  185;  see  also 
.  16,  51,  52. 

Storch,  Nikolaus,  radical,  350. 

Strauss,  D.  F.,  critic,  539-541. 

Strawbridge,  Robert,  Methodist,  517. 

Stiibner,  Markus  Thoma,  radical,  350. 

Sturm,  abbot  of  Fulda,  201. 

Sub-Deacons,  90. 

Succession,  apostolical,  48,  60,  61,  68. 

Sunday-schools,  521,  522,  579. 

Supererogation,  works  of,  43,  103,  104, 
272. 

Suso,  Henry,  mystic,  281. 

Sweden,  Reformation  in,  384-386. 

Symeon,  "Metaphrastes,"  235. 

Symeon,  the  "New  Theologian,"  235. 

Synods,  of  Aries,  113,  115,  121,  195; 
Antioch,  120,  130,  164;  Dort,  455, 
456;  Milan,  121;  "the  Oak,"  142; 
Orange,  189;  Sirmiurn,  122;  Tou 
louse,  253,  254. 

Taborites,  the,  305,  306. 

Tancred,  Crusader,  240. 

Tatian,  Apologist,  50. 

Tauler,  John,  mystic,  256,  280,  281, 
339. 

Tausen,  Hans,  reformer,  383. 

Taylor,  Nathaniel  W.,  theologian,  584. 

Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  the, 
42,  45,  95-97,  100,  103. 

Templars,  the,  241,  242,  292. 

Tennent,  Gilbert,  Revivalist,  571. 

Tennent,  William,  teacher,  571. 

Tennyson,  Alfred,  Lord,  broad-church, 
546. 

Tertiaries,  the,  260. 

Tertullian,  theologian,  life  and  teach 
ing,  67-72;  a  Montanist,  59,  67; 
Apostles'  Creed,  61;  baptism,  94-97, 
166;  Christology,  69,  71,  73-75,  114, 
143,  180;  "priest,"  99;  see  also  89, 
103,  175,  180,  188,  481. 

Tetzel,  Johann,  indulgences,  340,  341, 
343. 

Teutonic  Knights,  the,  242,  355,  357. 

Theodore,  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
199. 

Theodore,  of  Mopsuestia,  theologian, 
145,  147,  156,  157. 

Theodoret,  of  Cyrus,  theologian,  148, 
156. 

Theodoric,  Ostrogothic  King,  133. 

Theodosius,  Emperors,  I,  126-128,  131, 
140,  141;  II,  147,  148,  150,  151. 

Theodotus,  Christology,  "the  cur 
rier,"  72;  "the  money-changer,"  72. 


Theognis,  bishop  of  Nicaea,  117. 
Theopaschite  controversy,  the,  156. 
Theophilus,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  142. 
Tholuck,  F.  A.  G.,  theologian,  538. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  see  Aquinas. 
Thomas,  of  Stitney,  preacher,  302. 
Thomasius,  Christian,  rationalist,  499, 

524. 

Three  Chapters,  the,  156. 
Throckmorton,  Job,  Puritan,  462. 
Tiberius  II,  Emperor,  157. 
Tillet,  Louis  du,  Calvin's  friend,  391. 
Tilly,  general,  446-449. 
Timothy,  29. 

Timothy,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  153. 
Tindal,  Matthew,  Deist,  487,  488. 
Tiridates,  King  of  Armenia,  158. 
Tithes,  208,  335,  354. 
Titus,  28. 

Titus,  Emperor,  25. 
Toland,  John,  Deist,  487. 
Toplady,  Augustus,  and  Wesley,  516. 
Torquemada,  Tomas,  inquisitor,  324. 
Trajan,  Emperor,  42,  49. 
Travers,  Walter,  Puritan,  460,  462. 
Treaty,  of  Cateau-Cambresis,  431;  of 

Passau,  381;  of  Verdun,  209,  210. 
Tregelles,   S.   P.,   Plymouth  Brethren, 

551. 

Trie,  Guillaume,  and  Calvin,  399. 
Trinity,   the,   formulae,  58;  Tertullian, 

69,  70;  Novatian,  74,  75;  Augustine, 

179,  180;  Abelard,  265. 
Troeltsch,  Ernst,  544. 
Truce  of  God,  the,  220. 
Truchsess,     Gebhard,     archbishop    of 

Cologne,  445. 
Turks,  conquests,  236,  238,  284,  285, 

356,  357. 

Tyndale,  William,  translator,  405,  406. 
Tyrrell,  George,  modernist,  564. 

Ugolino,    cardinal,    see    Pope   Gregory 

IX. 

Ulflla,  missionary,  129,  130. 
Ulrich,  duke  of  WUrttemberg,  365,  374. 
Ultramontanism,  559-562,  564. 
Unitarians,  in  England,  477,  494,  495, 

524,  550;  in  America,  573,  577,  578, 

580,  586. 
Universalists,  in  America,  573,  576,  577, 

586. 

Universities,    medteval,    267-269;    fif 
teenth  century,  326-328. 
Unni,  missionary,  236. 
Urban,   Popes,   II,   232,   233,   239-241. 

276;  IV,  288;  V,  296,  297;  VI,  297; 

VIII,  556. 

Ursacius,  bishop  of  Singidunum,  121. 
Ursinus,  Zacharias,  theologian,  443. 
Utraquists,  the,  305,  306,  310. 

Valdes,  Juan,  reformer,  423. 
Valdez,  see  Waldenses. 


INDEX 


623 


Valens,  bishop  of  Mursa,  121,  122. 
Valens,  Emperor.  125,  127,  131. 
Valentinian,  Emperors,  I,  125;  II,  128, 

140;  III,  132,  148,  165. 
Valentinus,  Gnostic,  55,  56. 
Valerian,  Emperor,  86,  87. 
Valerius,  bishop  of  Hippo,  178. 
Valla,  Lorenzo,  critic,  205,  315. 
Vandals,  the,  130-134,  178,  188. 
Vasa,    Gustaf,   King   of   Sweden,  385, 

386. 

Vasey,  Thomas,  Methodist,  517,  575. 
Vatable,  Francois,  teacher,  390. 
Venn,  John,  missions,  523. 
Vergilius,  bishop  of  Aries,  198. 
Vermigli,     Pietro    Martire,    reformer, 

423. 
Victor,  Popes,  I,  65,  72;  II,  224,  225; 

III,  232;  IV  (Counter-Pope),  285. 
Victor  Emmanuel  II,   King   of  Italy, 

562. 

Victorinus,  Neo-Platonist,  177. 
Vigilantius,  175. 
Vigilius,  Pope,  157. 
Vincent,  of  L6rins,  188. 
Vinci,  Leonard!  da,  316. 
Viret,  Pierre,  reformer,  395. 
Virgil,  missionary,  197. 
Virginia,  colonial   religious  conditions, 

566. 

Visigoths,  the,  127,  129-134,  159,  160. 
Vitalian,  Pope,  199. 
Vittoria,  Francisco  de,  theologian,  324. 
Vladimir,  grand-duke  of  Russia,  237. 
Voltaire,  492,  557. 
Vulgate,  the,  174. 

Waldenses,  the,  251-254,  306,  387. 
Wallace,  Alfred  Russel,  scientist,  552. 
Wallenstein,  Albrecht  von,  446-449. 
War,  Thirty  Years',  the,  446-451,  503, 

555. 

Ware,  Henry,  Unitarian,  577. 
Watt,  James,  inventor,  507. 
Watts,  Isaac,  hymn-writer,  508. 
Webb,  Thomas,  Methodist,  517. 
Wedgwood,  Josiah,  inventor,  507. 
Wenzel,  King  of  Bohemia,  303,  304. 
Wesley,  Charles,  509-517. 
Wesley,  John,  509-518;    see  also  456, 

508,  519,  520,  528,  567,  575. 
Wesley,  Samuel,  508-511. 
Wesley,  Susanna,  509. 
Westminster  Assembly,   see  Assembly 

and  Confession. 

Wettstein,  J.  J.,  Biblical  scholar,  528. 
Whatcoat,    Richard,    Methodist,    517, 

575. 

White,  William,  bishop,  574,  575. 
Whitefleld,    George,    Evangelist,    510- 

514;  in  America,  567,  571;  see  also 

509,  519,  576,  578. 

Whitgift,  John,  archbishop  of  Canter 
bury,  459,  460,  462,  464,  465. 


Wibert,  Counter-Pope,  231-233. 
Wied,  Hermann  von,  409. 
Wightman,  Edward,  burned,  494. 
Wilberforce,  William,  Evangelical,  520. 
Wilcox,  Thomas,  Puritan,  460. 
Wilfrid,  bishop  of  York,  199. 
Wilhelm,  duke  of  Cleves,  378. 
William  I,  the  Conqueror,  228. 
William  III,  and  Mary,  of  England  and 

Scotland,  476-478,  552. 
William,    of   Champeaux,    schoolman, 

264,  267. 

William,  of  Occam,  see  Occam. 
William,  of  Orange,  "the  Silent,"  434- 

437. 
William,  the  Pious,  founder  of  Cluny, 

219. 

Williams,  Roger,  568. 
Willibrord,  missionary,  201. 
Wimpina,  Konrad,  341. 
Winchester,  Elhanan,  Unlversalist,  576, 

577. 

Winfrid,  see  Boniface. 
Winthrop,     John,     Congregationalist, 

469. 
Wisdom,  Jewish  conception  of,  16,  17; 

Pauline,  36. 

Wishart,  George,  burned,  416. 
Witchcraft,  333,  445. 
Wolff,  Christian,  philosopher,  524-526, 

530-532. 

Wolfgang,  of  Anhalt,  359,  371. 
Wolflin,  Heinrich,  humanist,  360. 
Wolsey,  Thomas,  cardinal,  402,  403. 
Worms,  Concordat  of,  see  Concordat. 
Worship,  of  Emperors,  8,  9,  49. 
Wrede,  William,  scholar,  544. 
Wtenbogaert,  Johan,  Arminian,  454. 
Wyclif,   John,    English    reformer,    life 

and  work,  298-304;  see  also  306,  332, 

405. 
Wyttenbach,  Thomas,  humanist,  360. 

Xavier,  Francis,  missionary,  425,  429, 

430. 
Ximenes,  Spanish  reformer,  323,  324, 

331,  422. 

Young,  Brigham,  Mormon,  582,  583. 
Young    Men's    Christian    Association, 

the,  588. 
Young  Women's  Christian  Association, 

the,  588. 

Zacharias,  Pope,  203,  215. 

Zbynek,  archbishop  of  Prague,  303, 
304. 

Zeisberger,  David,  missionary,  505. 

Zell,  Matthew,  reformer,  363. 

Zeno,  Emperor,  135,  154,  165. 

Zeno,  Stoic,  6. 

Zephyrinus,  Pope,  74. 

Ziegenbalg,  Bartholomaus,  mission 
ary,  500. 


624  INDEX 

Zinzendorf,    Moravian    founder,    502-  religious     development,     361,     362; 

507  513;  in  America,  575.  marriage,  363;  disputes  with  Luther, 

Zizka,  John,  Hussite,  305.  363,  364,  370;  political  plans,  365; 

Zosimus,  Pope,  187.  opposes  Anabaptists,  366,  367;  the 

Zwilling,  Gabriel,  radical,  349.  Marburg  colloquy,  370;  confession, 

Zwingli,  Huldreich,  life  and  work,  360-  372 ;  death,  365,  373 ;  see  also  394, 

366;  education,  360;  at  Zurich,  361:  415. 


*  *  (1938 


r 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY 


BR  Walker,-  Williaton 

146  A  history  of  the  Christian: 

3  Churchj* 


til! 


•